Download Review of Feral Goat Regulatory and Strategic

Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series No. 2
Review of Feral Goat Regulatory
and Strategic Framework
Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series No. 2: Review of Feral Goat Regulatory and Strategic Framework
Freecall 1800 032 101
Email: [email protected]
www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au
Report prepared for the Western Catchment Management Authority by:
Dr Anne Kerle
Ecologist
Knowledge, Assessment, Evaluation, Training, Communication
5 Fitzroy St, Peel, NSW 2795
This report can be cited as: Review of Feral Goat Regulatory and Strategic Framework (2011). Western Catchment
Management Authority, A. Kerle
ISBN 978-0-7313-3918-1
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared as part of the Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands project. Any opinions stated herein are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Western Catchment Management Authority.
page 1
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Table of Contents
List of Legislative Instruments .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . 3
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . 4
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . 5
Part 1: Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1 The feral goat problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................................................ . . . . . . . . 9
1.2 Invasive vertebrates in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . 10
Part 2: Review of legislation, regulations, strategies, guidelines and policies ............................................................................ . . . . . . 13
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . 13
2.2 Legal status and ownership of unmanaged goats........................................................................................................................ . . . . . . 13
2.3 Legal obligations, policies and strategies for control of unmanaged goats........................................................................ . . . . . 18
2.4 Control of unmanaged goat populations. . . ...................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . 26
2.5 Animal welfare.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . 31
Part 3: Policy framework for rangeland land managers and the Catchment Management Authorities
in Western NSW.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................................................ . . . . . 35
3.1 Policy framework: contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................................................ . . . . . 35
3.2 Policy framework for the management of feral goats in Western NSW: Land managers and Catchment
Management Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . 37
Part 4: Summary and Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................................................................ . . . . . 43
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . 43
4.2 Legal and strategic framework.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . 43
4.3 Policy framework.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . 45
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . 46
Appendix 1: Legislation extracts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................................................................................................... . . . . . . 50
Appendix 2: DECCW pest management objectives, principles and priorities ............................................................................. . . . . . 52
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 2
List of Legislative Instruments
Commonwealth
Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997 (AMLI Act)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
New South Wales
Deer Act 2006
Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act)
Firearms Act 1996
Food Act 2003
Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 (GFAC Act)
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPA Act)
Non-Indigenous Animals Act 1987 (NIA Act) and Regulation 2006
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (PoEA Act)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (PoCTA Act) and Regulations (2006)
Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (RLP Act)
Stock Diseases Act 1923
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Western Lands Act 1901 (WL Act)
Victoria
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)
Wildlife Act 1975
South Australia
Natural Resource Management Act 2004 (NRM Act)
Queensland
Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 (LP(PSRM) Act)
Western Australia
Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 (ARRP Act)
Land Act 1933
Soil and Land Conservation Act 1993 (SLC Act)
Stock (Identification and Movement) Act 1970
page 3
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Acronyms
AAWS: Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (Commonwealth Govt)
ABARES: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (Commonwealth Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)
APAMP: Australian Pest Animal Management Plan (Commonwealth Govt)
APARP: Australian Pest Animal Research Program (Commonwealth Govt)
APAS: Australian Pest Animal Strategy (Commonwealth Govt)
APB: Agriculture Protection Board, Western Australia
APCC: Animal Plant and Control Commission (SA)
ARMCANZ: Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
AusBIOSEC: Australian Biosecurity System for Primary Production and the Environment.
COAG: Council of Australian Governments
CoP: Code of Practice
CMA: Catchment Management Authority
CRC: Cooperative Research Centre
DECCW: NSW department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, now the Office of Environment and Heritage
(OEH)
DEWHA: Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, now known as department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community
DI&I: NSW Department of Industry and investment, now Department of Primary Industry NSW
DPI: Department of Primary Industry, Victoria
DSE: Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
EPA: Environment Protection Agency, Queensland
FAAST: Feral Animals Aerial Shooting Team (NSW)
FATE: Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems
IATA: International Air Transport Association
IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
KTP: Key threatening process
LHPA: Livestock Health and Pest Authority, NSW, formerly the RLPB.
NLIS: National Livestock Identification System
NPWS: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
NRMMC: Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (Commonwealth Govt)
QPWS: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
RLPB: NSW Rural Lands Protection Board, now the LHPA
RSPCA: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
SOP: Safe Operating Procedure
TAP: Threat Abatement Plan
TGP: Total Grazing Pressure
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 4
Executive Summary
This report provides a summary and assessment of the range of legislative and policy instruments that are of relevance to
a feral goat management strategy in Western New South Wales. This has then been used as the basis of a policy framework
within which landholders can operate and which can be used by the Western Catchment Management Authority (CMA)
to encourage landholders to manage feral goats, leading to an improvement in groundcover.
There are key issues that need to be addressed in the formulation of a feral goat management strategy. What is the status
of feral goats in NSW, who owns them, are they detrimental or beneficial to the land manager, who has responsibility for
the control of their numbers and when is this necessary? In this review of legislation and other instruments, legal status
and ownership, legal obligations, policies and strategies for feral goat management, animal ethics, codes of practice and
requirements for feral goat control (culling and harvesting) and issues relating to feral goats as part of the livestock industry
have been addressed. The content of the legislative instruments, policies, strategies and programs that currently exist
across Australia are summarised in Table 1.
The key institutional difference between New South Wales and other states relates to the legal status of feral goats and
consequent legal obligations. NSW is the only state jurisdiction with a high abundance of feral goats in which they have
not been declared a pest species. As a consequence there is no obligation for them to be controlled on private or leasehold
land. Like the Commonwealth, NSW has listed feral goats as a key threatening process and this places the responsibility
on the NSW Government for the reduction of impacts of feral goats as provided for in a threat abatement plan. This plan is
currently being prepared and will focus on threatened entities vulnerable to impact from goats.
In Australia, ownership of native fauna is vested in the crown and domesticated animals are private property, held under
state legislation and regulations. Feral non-native animals do not fit into either category and are subject to common law
with some state regulation. In essence feral goats are not legally owned by anyone but if declared a pest their control
becomes the responsibility of the landowner where they occur. This is further complicated when species such as goats
move extensively across the landscape, crossing many property boundaries. The threat abatement plan developed under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides some clarification by stating that the landholder
is the owner for harvesting or control purposes.
In Western NSW statutory obligations for management of feral goats can arise through the Western Lands Act 1901, Rural
Lands Protection Act 1998 and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. As feral goats are not a declared pest, are not
subject of a direction from the Commissioner for Western Lands and there is no threat abatement plan there is no specific
statutory obligation relating to the control of feral goats. There is, however a general obligation under the lease conditions
in the Western Lands Act to incorporate the principles of ecologically sustainable development and social, economic
and environmental interests of the Western Division. The most comprehensive policy being implemented in the Western
Division is the Regional Pest Management Strategy for the NPWS Far West Region National Park Estate.
Given the absence of any statutory obligation for landholders to control feral goats and that ownership is not specifically
vested in the landholder, the most important requirement for control is the need to reduce competition for stock and to
control land degradation. The management of feral goats requires a systems approach in which it is viewed as one element
within the whole of landscape approach to land management.
The most effective approach to feral goat control in Western NSW will be through the development of an effective
cooperative management program which engages a broad cross section of stakeholders. Local ownership of the program
is essential and a range of targeted approaches determined to address specific needs in smaller areas is appropriate. In other
states there are examples of successful cooperative programs. The ‘Bounceback’ project in SA included many partnerships
between such diverse groups as landholders, sporting shooters, Aboriginal communities, conservation organisations,
scientific representatives, pest control officers and other government agencies. After more than 10 years threat abatement
plans have been implemented and feral goat control has effectively reduced impacts. Both Queensland and Victoria have
established Good Neighbour Programs in order to build cooperation between agencies and landholders.
Education and extension will be key components of the management strategy. In particular landholders need to be
accurately informed of the size of the problem and its extent and this can be strongly supported by a regular program
of mapping goat distribution and abundance and substantiated evidence of the impact of feral goats through targeted
research. The provision of this baseline data and coordination of the development and implementation of cooperative
management programs could be provided through the Western CMA.
page 5
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Animal welfare must be an integral component of any strategy as required by the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
1979. The Western CMA would also have a role in ensuring that landholders are fully informed of the Standard Operating
Procedures and Codes of Practice for harvesting and culling programs, as well as the standards required through our
obligations to the World Health Organisation and the National Livestock Identification System.
The Australian Pest Animal Strategy provides a set of principles suitable to underpin a policy framework for feral goat
management. Key components of this strategy include a sustainable management approach, shared responsibility for
management, a risk management approach to the setting of priorities, coordination between all stakeholders, capacity
building, a focus on actual not perceived problems and an aim to reduce impacts, consideration of animal welfare at all
times, ensuring that the benefits outweigh the costs and assessment of the value of commercial harvesting in offsetting
costs.
There should only be one policy framework which addresses issues relating to both landholders and the Western CMA, a
cooperative approach in which the responsibilities land managers and the agencies are specified.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 6
Table 1: Summary of legislative instruments, policies,
For abbreviations refer to the lists of
Legal Status
Australian Govt.
NSW
South Australia
EPBC Act: Threatening process
TSC Act: Threatening process
NRM Act: Declared pest (Category
3) - eradicate from islands, control
elsewhere
RLP Act: Not declared a pest
GFAC Act: Game animal if living in
the wild
Ownership
EPBC Act (TAP): ‘owned’ by the
owner/occupier of the land for
harvesting or control purposes.
All legislation: Unmanaged goats
are unprotected fauna and are not
the property of either the crown or
the landholder
Proprietary rights not defined
Legal Obligations
EPBC Act (TAP): Provides national
framework for reduction of
impacts of unmanaged goats on
biodiversity
EPA Act: Threatening process to be
assessed
TSC Act: TAP not yet completed.
Should provide strategic control
initiatives to protect threatened
species across land tenures.
NPW Act: Requires mitigation of
threatening processes to protect
biodiversity on National Park
estate.
RLP Act & WL Act: No obligations
– no declarations.
NRM Act: Responsibility of owner
and to destroy or control declared
animals.
Strategies & Programs
TAP
APAS
APARP
NSW Invasive Species plan 20082015
Vertebrate Pest Control manual
(DI&I);
DECCW Regional Pest
Management Strategies.
Policy relating to Feral Goats:
twofold aim: environmental
protection from damage and
reduction of potential for goat
reintroduction. Bounceback
program for goat control in
Flinders Ranges.
Culling
Standard Operating Procedures
for all methods of goat control
adopted by all jurisdictions.
Standard Operating Procedures
for all methods of goat control
adopted by all jurisdictions.
Standard Operating Procedures
for all methods of goat control
adopted by all jurisdictions.
Commercial Use
WHO standards & guidelines for
animal health and IATA; AMLI
Act; Australia New Zealand Food
Standards Code; Australian
standard for Game Meat (SCARM
Report 57); Regulation of live
export.
Transport & sales: NLIS tagging;
Model CoP for goat welfare;
Minimum welfare requirements
under PoCTA Act; Notification
of disease under Stock Diseases
Act; Biosecurity guidelines; Food
regulation 2010 under the Food
Act.
Animal Welfare
No national legislation or
guidelines; SoPs and CoPs; AAWS
Animals in the Wild sector;
Humaneness of pest animal
control methods: model for
assessment; model CoP for the
welfare of animals: the Goat
(SCARM 32).
PoCTA Act & Regs: prohibits
cruelty to animals and promotes
animal welfare; specifies
requirements for food, drink,
shelter, Vet care for animals whose
movement is restricted; limited
welfare responsibility for free
ranging animals; Vertebrate Pest
Control Manual (DI&I).
page 7
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
strategies and programs for feral goat management
legislative instruments and acronyms.
Western Australia
Queensland
Victoria
Assessment and Summary
ARRP Act: Declared pest across
WA.
LP (PSRM) Act: Declared as
pest (Class 2) - established and
causing adverse impacts.
CaLP Act: Declared an
established pest.
The legal status of feral goats across Australia
falls into two categories:
1. Conservation of environmental values
2. Protection of land and production
through declaration as a pest - strength of
legislation is variable.
Proprietary rights not defined
Proprietary rights not defined
Proprietary rights not defined
Subject to common law with some regulation
in state and territory legislation - as they
are neither native fauna nor domesticated
stock. Needs clarification for the purposes of
responsibility of care, welfare and the right to
use and commercial harvesting.
ARRP Act: Responsibility
of land manager to control
declared animals, including state
government, local government
and private (freehold and
leasehold land).
LP (PSRM) Act: Responsibility
of every landholder unless they
hold a declared pest permit
allowing the pest to be kept.
CaLP Act: Responsibility of
land manager to control an
established pest, including
National Parks.
Responsibility of land occupier to control a
declared pest in all states. Feral Goats are not
declared and are unlikely to be declared a
pest species in NSW so land manager has no
responsibility for their control.
Declaration as a KTP in NSW and by the
Commonwealth creates some obligations
for the development of control programs
where feral goats are adversely impacting on
threatened species.
Monitoring framework for
ecologically significant invasive
species; Feral Goat Farmnote.
State Land & Pest Management
Strategy. Qld EPA pest
management plan for National
Park estate; EPA Good
Neighbour Policy.
No specific policy; included
under the Invasive Plants &
Animals Policy Framework. Dept
DSE Good Neighbour program.
Existing strategies and programs etc, fit into
two categories:
1. Broad invasive species frameworks
reflecting the APAS and linked to
biosecurity issues.
2. Species specific policies and programs
directly addressing goat management
Standard Operating Procedures
for all methods of goat control
adopted by all jurisdictions.
Standard Operating Procedures
for all methods of goat control
adopted by all jurisdictions.
Standard Operating Procedures
for all methods of goat control
adopted by all jurisdictions.
The commercial use of unmanaged goats is
regulated under nationally accepted CoPs and
SoPs. These have no statutory power unless
incorporated into legislation.
The provisions of the NSW PoCTA Act are
reflected in animal welfare legislation in all
Australian jurisdictions.
SoPs and CoPs adopted by the states or used
to develop their own codes; SoPs and CoPs
have no statutory power unless incorporated
into legislation. State legislation governs
cruelty to animals regulations but the
Commonwealth has responsibility for export
trade and transport through the TAP and on
Commonwealth land.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 8
Part 1: Introduction
1.1 The feral goat problem
Populations of wild goats occur within all jurisdictions of Australia and on many offshore islands. The origin and density of
these populations varies across this distribution but the greatest densities are found in the pastoral lands of Western NSW,
South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland (Henzell 2008; Reddiex & Forsyth 2004; DEWHA 2008a). Populations
in Western NSW are most likely to have originated from individuals accompanying the early settlers to provide food and
milk in these remote areas and, having survived through the dry conditions of the first half of the twentieth century,
established substantial herds in response to the good conditions produced by the extreme wet periods of the 1950s and
1970s (Parkes et al 1996; Reddiex & Forsyth 2004).
The detrimental impact of feral goats on the landscape worldwide is highlighted by the inclusion of the goat in the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) list of the 100 worst invasive species (Lowe et al 2000). With the variation in distribution and
density of feral goats across Australia the response of each jurisdiction to their management also varies. In particular
the response is influenced by whether the objectives are directed towards conservation or production. The history of
landuse is also a factor in management of feral goats. In the mallee in Victoria where the Big Desert and Sunset Country
conservation reserves were previously extensive pastoral leases, the recovery of perennial vegetation has been hampered
by the continuing impact of grazing by feral goats, rabbits and kangaroos.1 There are also border issues relating to the
impact of goats. In the Murraylands region of South Australia there is concern that numbers are increasing with goats
crossing from Victoria into South Australia.2
There is evidence that at least fifty-six plant and animal species listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) are adversely impacted by competition and land degradation caused
by feral goats (DEWHA 2008b). Many more species are affected when those listed under state legislation and regionally
threatened species are included. In NSW 18 endangered species, two vulnerable species and three endangered ecological
communities listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) are known or are likely to be threatened
by feral goats (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). In South Australia goats are considered responsible for damaging
mallee habitat and affecting the security of the red lored whistler, white-browed babbler, chestnut quail-thrush, tawny
frogmouth, boobook owl and malleefowl.3
Damage to pasture attributed to feral goats is estimated to cost Australian producers some $20 million annually. This does
not include additional costs for their control or commercial harvesting operations which can be substantial (McLeod 2004).
This is considerably higher than the estimated $7.15 million annual cost of damage caused by camels to infrastructure
and production on pastoral properties and reserves, increasing to more than $10 million when control and management
costs are included (Zeng & Edwards 2010). The Australian Government’s Caring for our Country Business Plan 2009-10
identified feral camel management as a priority for investment and considerable work has been undertaken by the
Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (SEWPaC 2010). Feral goats have not been the subject of an integrated
national management program although a comprehensive report on the management of feral goats was prepared for
the Commonwealth Government in 1996 (Parkes et al. 1996).
In my observation, comments from landholders about the waves of feral goats moving across the rangelands of Western
NSW have been more frequent over the last few years. In their pest animal survey 2004-06 West & Saunders (2007)
conclude that feral goats have expanded their range slightly since 2002, occurring in 38% of NSW and the ACT. There
were small increases in abundance in the Lower-Darling region, Upper-Darling and Northern Plains regions of Western
NSW and small decreases in density observed across wide areas through the Upper-Darling and Far-west Regions.
They suggest that these small decreases in density are likely to be result of the drought conditions and the commercial
harvesting occurring through that area. They also note that feral goats were perceived to have a greater impact through
pasture competition in 2004 than in 2002 (West & Saunders 2007). A feral goat management strategy for Western NSW
should be based on regular assessments of the distribution and abundance of this species throughout Western NSW.
3
1
2
http://www.dse.vic.govt.au/DSE/nrence.nsf/ accessed Sept 2010
www.dwlbc.sa.gov/land/rangelands accessed Sept 2010
ibid
page 9
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
1.2 Invasive vertebrates in Australia
Australia is host to 56 invasive vertebrate animal species, including more than 10% of mammal species here. Those with
the greatest impact (in order of damage estimates) are: European red fox, feral cats, rabbits, feral pigs, wild dogs, the house
mouse, carp, goats, cane toads, wild horses and camels.4 The overall estimated annual cost to Australia of these species
is more than $1 billion in economic, environmental and social damage. Economic damage includes livestock predation,
food competition, crop damage and control costs. Invasive species have been a major contributor to the large number
of mammal extinctions in Australia in the last 200 years in addition to the decline of native freshwater fish populations
and degradation of both terrestrial and aquatic systems. The social impact is often overlooked but includes the impact
on cultural icons, distress at the mauling of livestock and damage caused, and community disruption (Saunders & Molloy
2008).
Despite considerable expense and effort by government and land managers in the past, none of these invasive vertebrate
species have been eradicated. This would seem to be an unrealistic target (NRMMC 2007). More strategic approaches to
vertebrate pest management have consequently been developed by federal and state governments. These include the
Australian Pest Animal Strategy (APAS) developed for the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC 2007)
and the New South Wales Invasive Species Plan 2008-2015 (NSW DI&I 2008) which includes both plants and animals.
Rather than aiming to eradicate invasive species the vision of the Federal Government management strategy is that:
Australia’s biodiversity, agricultural assets and social values are secure from the impacts of vertebrate pest animals (p8 NRMMC
2007).
A similar vision is found in the NSW plan (p3 NSW DI&I 2008). There is also a recognition that the responsibilities for pest
management lie with both government and non-government stakeholders, each of which is responsible for different
facets of the strategies.
The focus of the APAS is therefore strategic best practice management of pest animals where they are causing harm rather
than perceived damage. The principles underpinning the strategy are:
1. Pest animal management is an integral part of the sustainable management of natural resources for the benefit of
the economy, the environment, human health and amenity.
2. Combating pest animal problems is a shared responsibility that requires all parties to have a clear understanding
of their roles and responsibilities.
3. The development, monitoring and review of integrated pest animal management strategies need to be
underpinned by good science.
4. Setting priorities for, and investment in, pest animal management must be informed by a risk management
approach.
5. Prevention and early intervention are the most cost effective techniques for managing pest animals.
6. Pest animal management requires coordination among all levels of government in partnership with industry, land
and water managers and the community, regardless of land tenure.
7. Effective pest animal management requires capacity-building across government, industry, land and water
managers and the community.
8. Management of established pests should aim to address actual rather than perceived problems, and to reduce
impacts rather than simply pest animal numbers.
9. Management should be strategic in terms of determining where management should occur, timing of management,
being proactive and using appropriate techniques.
10. Where there is a choice of methods, there needs to be a balance between efficacy, humaneness, community
perception, feasibility and emergency needs.
11. The benefits of management should exceed the costs of implementing control.
12. As part of an integrated pest animal management program, commercial harvesting may offset management
costs.
4
Invasive Animals CRC website http://www.invasiveanimals.com/about-us/ Accessed September 2010
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 10
While these principles are broader in their focus than those in the NSW plan, they do encompass the same or similar issues
and factors (p9 NRMMC 2007; p7 NSW DI&I 2008).
The APAS also outlines some of the challenges that confront effective pest animal management across Australia. These
include:
• Regulatory challenges: implementation of regulatory provisions while also acknowledging the economic and practical
limitations of stakeholders to manage pests; managing illegal activities and the keeping of potential pest species.
• Response challenges: improving the coordination and planning of response and management; addressing pest animal
issues within the broader context of natural resource and catchment management; more efficient and effective use of
resources and accessing of new resources.
• Education and training responses: increasing the awareness of problems and solutions through improving knowledge
of species distribution, ecology, environmental impacts; development of alternative management techniques;
adequate access to training; increased acceptance of stakeholders perceptions, responsibilities and priorities for
management; acknowledgement of the benefits derived from pest animals as well as their costs.
• Research challenges: better understanding of the costs of environmental impacts; investigation of all means of
introduction and spread; investigation of the changes to risks posed by pest animals in response to climate change;
improvement of methods and techniques for pest management.
• Socio-political challenges: provision of adequate resourcing for control programs; pesticide use and animal welfare
concerns; acceptance of the presence of some pests.
The principles, issues and challenges espoused in the APAS and the NSW Invasive Species Plan should underpin the policy
framework and management plan for goat control in Western NSW.
1.1
Key issues influencing goat management in New South Wales
What is the status of goats in Western NSW, who owns them, are they detrimental or beneficial to the land manager,
who has responsibility for the control of their numbers and when is this necessary? Determining a soundly based goat
management plan for Western NSW is complex with environmental, economic, social and legislative issues, some of which
appear to be conflicting or ambiguous, needing to be considered.
In Australia ownership of native fauna is vested in the crown and domesticated animals are private property, held under
State legislation and regulations. Feral non-native animals do not fit into either category and are consequently subject to
common law (judicial determination) with some state regulation. In essence they are not legally owned by anyone but
if declared a pest their control becomes the responsibility of the landowner where they occur (Garnett et al. 2010). This
becomes increasingly ambiguous when species such as goats move extensively across the landscape, crossing many
property boundaries. This is in contrast with feral plants which are regarded in the same way as native plants, as part of the
land where they are growing, and are therefore the responsibility of the land owner (Garnett et al. 2010). In addition, since
land tenure in Western NSW is leasehold, are feral species the responsibility of the lessee or the lessor?
A critical issue in land management in Western NSW is the concept of total grazing pressure (TGP). In this landscape
grazing pressure is caused by domestic stock, native grazers (kangaroos) and feral grazers (predominantly goats). The
management of the resource and the commercial productivity of the land require management of the populations and
impact of all three of these grazers. Domesticated stock are the property of the landholder, the kangaroos are owned by
the Crown, governed by regulation and controlled by legislated harvesting protocols, but while goats have a significant
impact on grazing management they are neither the responsibility of the Crown or the landholder.
The commercial value of goats can also create conflict with the preferred management strategies of sustainable grazing
management, maximising productivity of a grazing enterprise and land managed for conservation.The different objectives
will require either the maintenance of a population for commercial harvesting or eradication or suppression to a very low
level (West & Saunders 2007). Australia has been a leading exporter of goats in the world but the rate of harvesting is
variable. Commercial wild harvest is driven by the prevailing price for game meat and may only be seriously considered
when seasonal pasture conditions are poor and competition with stock is more intense (West & Saunders 2003). Harvesting
is also more difficult when conditions are good which may explain the decrease in the number of goats harvested between
1996 and 2002 in NSW (West & Saunders 2003).
In balancing the economic value of commercial harvesting with sustainable grazing management of the rangelands
it will be important to recognise the population dynamics of feral goat populations and the impact of erratic, market
driven commercial harvesting regimes. Lack of interest in harvesting during good seasons may provide a perception that
page 11
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
goats are not a problem and numbers are not increasing. It is likely that they are more scattered with resources being
more readily available and the overall density is likely to be increasing. Feral goats also persist longer into a drought than
stock or kangaroos creating greater competition with the remaining stock and increasing pasture degradation (West &
Saunders 2003). West & Saunders (2007) recommend that commercial goat harvesting should not be seen as a sustainable
management strategy. The degradation caused by goats requires that their populations be rapidly reduced with income
provided as a bonus.
Establishment of domestic goat herds is another risk factor in the control of feral goat populations. This can occur through
the domestication of feral goats or the importation of domestic breeds. In both cases the potential for re-establishment
or expansion of feral populations is high without strict controls and protocols. Both the South Australian and Western
Australian Governments have established regulations specifying fencing requirements and establishing domestication
protocols for wild caught goat stock (APCC DPI SA 1998; Gray & Massam 2001).
1.2
Scope of this review
This review is one of four projects being sponsored by the Western Catchment Management Authority (CMA) in order to
develop a Feral Goat Management Strategy. It is intended that the final strategy be applicable to not only the Western
Catchment but also the Lower Murray Darling Catchment since both regions have similar natural resource management
issues. Consequently the area to be covered by the Feral Goat Management Strategy is broadly defined as the Western NSW
Rangelands.
In this review legislation, regulations, strategies, guidelines and policies relating to feral goat management in the Western
NSW Rangelands have been examined. This has also been compared with the equivalent legal framework developed in other
Australian jurisdictions as well as legislation and management requirements of other feral grazing vertebrates in Australia.
As a result of this review, this report:
1. provides a summary and assessment of the range of legislative and policy instruments that are of relevance to a
Feral Goat Management Strategy in Western NSW;
2. establishes a policy framework within which the landholders can operate;
3. establishes a policy framework which the Western CMA can use to encourage landholders to manage feral goats
in order to improve groundcover; and
4. outlines recommendations for improving existing policies as a result of this review.
While there is some overlap with the scope of the other three concurrent projects this report does not provide an in-depth
discussion of the biology and ecology of feral goats in Australia or Western NSW nor the role of goats in total grazing
pressure. These aspects will be dealt with fully in the projects:
• Review of knowledge relating to feral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands;
and
• Implications of the feral goat harvest industry for total grazing pressure (TGP) management.
1.3
Contents of this report
This report is divided into four parts:
1. Introduction: This section sets the context for the development of a feral goat management strategy and the
contents of this report.
2. Part 2: Relevant legislation and other instruments from NSW, the Commonwealth and other Australian jurisdictions
are outlined and summarised. This addresses issues including the legal status and ownership of feral goats in
Australia, legal obligations, policies and strategies for management of feral goats, issues relating to animal ethics
and regulations, codes of practice and requirements relating to the control (culling and live harvest) of feral
goats.
3. Part 3: Policy frameworks developed for both landholders and the Western CMA.
4. Part 4: A summary of the findings of this review and recommendations for improving the existing legislation and
policies in NSW and policy framework summarised.
All material referenced in the report is provided and excerpts from relevant legislation and codes of practice are provided
in the Appendices.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 12
Part 2: Review of legislation, regulations, strategies,
guidelines and policies
2.1 Introduction
In this section the legislation relevant to legal status, ownership, legal obligations for control of feral goats, policies and
strategies for their control, issues of culling, live harvest, disease management and animal ethics considerations are
addressed. The legislation, its jurisdiction, key provisions and relevance to goat management are listed followed by an
assessment of its effectiveness for the management of feral goats in Western NSW.
2.2 Legal status and ownership of unmanaged goats
2.2.1 Definition of feral goat
The brief for this review refers to feral goat management. The terminology and definition of a feral species varies across
jurisdictions.
The background report for the Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) refers to rangeland goats which it then classifies as managed and unmanaged
(DEWHA 2008a). In the TAP report unmanaged goats are then defined as:
‘Free-living and not subject to livestock husbandry’ (p5 DEWHA 2008b)
Managed goats are permanently restrained by fences or subject to husbandry.
For NSW, English & Chapple (2002) have defined feral species as:
‘…non-native animals introduced into Australia that have subsequently gone wild, with the exception of dingoes …..’
Additional relevant definitions provided in the APAS (pp22 & 23 NRMMC 2007) based on internationally accepted definitions
are:
Feral populations
‘An animal species that has reverted to the wild from domestication. The mere keeping of a species in captivity does not imply
domestication, so the term should never be used to refer to wild non-domesticated species.’
Invasive species
‘A non-native species, the establishment and spread of which threatens ecosystems, habitats or other species with economic
or environmental harm.’
Pest Animal
Any animal having, or with the potential to have, an adverse economic, environmental or social/cultural impact.’
These definitions are appropriate for the development of a management strategy for Western NSW.
2.2.2 Legal status
Legislation
Commonwealth
EPBC Act 1999: The objects (s3) of this Act are primarily concerned with the protection of the environment, ecologically
sustainable use of natural resources and the conservation of biodiversity (s3 (1)). It also promotes a cooperative approach
to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, community, landholders and Indigenous
people (s3(1)(d)).
In s3(2)(e) the means of enhancing Australia’s capacity to ensure the conservation of its biodiversity is specified through
the inclusion of provisions to:
s3(2)(e)(iv) identify processes that threaten all levels of biodiversity and implement plans to address these processes
s3(2)(g)(iv) involve the community in management planning.
page 13
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
In response to these objects unmanaged goats have been listed under s183 of the EPBC Act as a Key Threatening Process
Competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats. A Threat Abatement Plan has been developed (under sections
270A, 270B, 271, 272) and this consists of a Background Report and a Plan (DEWHA 2008a,b)
New South Wales
Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC Act) 1995: As for the EPBC Act the objects of the TSC Act are directed to the
conservation of ecological processes and biodiversity.
s3 Objects
(a) Conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development
(b) Prevent extinction and promote recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities
(c) Protect critical habitat
(d) To eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened
species, populations or ecological communities
Under s13 of this Act the eligibility for threatening processes to be listed as a key threatening process (KTP) is stated as:
(1) A threatening process is eligible to be listed as a “key threatening process” if, in the opinion of the Scientific
Committee:
(a) it adversely affects threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or
(b) it could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become
threatened.
Competition and Habitat Degradation by Feral Goats, Capra hircus, Linnaeus 1758 has been listed as a Key Threatening Process
in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act, as provided for by Part 2 including s13. In the final determination feral goats are described as
posing a potential threat to plant communities given the large number of plant species palatable to goats and their ability
to browse and graze in inaccessible areas; causing significant habitat degradation through vegetation destruction and
contributing to erosion; significantly altering the habitat of native fauna and flora; competing with native fauna for food.
Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (RLP Act): Management of pest species is provided for in Part 11 of this Act.
s141 definitions
• “pest” means any member of the animal kingdom declared by a pest control order to be a pest.
• “pest control order” means an order made under s143.
• “controlled land”, in relation to a pest control order, means the land to which the order applies.
Pest control orders can be made by the Minister who, under s143(1)(a), can ‘describe any land under which the order
applies (the “controlled land”)’ and then under s143(1)(b) declare any non-human animal or bird, insect ….. to be a “pest”
on the controlled land.
• Pest control orders apply to the occupier of the land (both public and private) for destruction or notification of
pests.
• “occupier” of land means the person entitled to immediate possession of the land but, if the person so entitled
does not reside on the land, does not include the resident manager or other person in charge of the land (s58).
s143 of the RLP Act 1998 is reproduced in Appendix 1.
Feral goats could be declared on a regional basis by the Livestock Health and Pest Authority under the RLP Act 1998 but
there is no current declaration in NSW (October 2010). The only species currently declared are wild rabbits, wild dogs, feral
pigs and locusts.
Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002: Game animals for the purposes of this Act are defined under s5. These include goat
under s5(2)(d) but only if ‘living in the wild’.
A game hunting licence is not required for hunting goats on private land but is required if hunting animals living in the
wild on public land (s5(2)).
Game animals do not include any animal that is listed under the TSC Act 1995 or is part of a listed ecological community
or that is protected fauna within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (s5(3)).
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 14
South Australia
Natural Resources Management Act 2004: The Objects of this Act (s7) are broad, including natural resource and biological
diversity protection, catchment management, supporting sustainable primary production and control of impacts caused
by pest animals and plants.
Under s174 particular classes of plants and animals can be declared as pests by the Minister who can also declare control
areas (part of or the whole state) for that class. There are three categories of declared animals and plants under s174(5).
Feral goats have been declared under four classes as a Category 3 species. Under the provisions of this Act:
• goats must not be brought onto any offshore islands (s175(1) Class 13),
• goats must not be kept in captivity on offshore islands or the Flinders Ranges Development Zone (s176(1) classes
12 &13)
• goats must not be released (s179, classes 12, 13, 14, 15)
• landowners must notify of the presence of goats on offshore islands or the Flinders Ranges Development Zone
(s180 classes 12, 13)
• landowners must take prescribed measures in the manner prescribed for control of these animals (s182(3) classes
12, 13, 14, 15)
• landowners must not move feral goats that have been captured and held captive for less than three months either
within the property or within the state which is the specified control area (s175(3), class 15)
• Under regulation 26(2) of the NRM Regulations 2005 farmed goats must be held securely with fences built in
accordance with the specifications in the determinations and permanently and visibly marked if more than 6 months
old or 15 kg in weight.5
In summary the feral goat is a declared pest which must be excluded and, if necessary eradicated from offshore islands and
the Flinders Ranges Development Zone and controlled where present across the remainder of the state as specified by the
NRM Boards or Pastoral Boards. Domestic goats or captive feral goats are to be held within a secure enclosure and tagged
as required by the NLIS (see section 2.5).
Queensland
Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and Regulations 2003: The main purpose of this Act is to provide
for pest management for land (s3(a)) and to manage the stock route network (s3(b)). s4(c) provides for the declaration of
animals and plants as pests. The means for achieving the purpose of this Act is spelt out in more detail in s4 (reproduced
in Appendix 1).
Under s36 & s38 of the Act, goats other than domestic goats (Capra hircus) are listed as Class 2 pests in Schedule 2 (s4
LP(PSRM) Regulations). They are able to be kept under permit (Schedule 3).
Class 2 pests (s38(2)(b)) are defined as being established in Queensland (i) and causing or with the potential to cause an
adverse economic, environmental or social impact in the state, another state or parts of either (ii). The decision to declare is
based on the significance of the impact (or potential impact), area affected and extent of spread or the potential for spread
(s38(3)).
Victoria
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994: This Act has as one of its objectives ‘to provide for the control of noxious weeds
and pest animals’ (s4(e)).
Feral goats have been declared as established pests under s58(1)(b) and 59(5) of this Act in which feral or wild populations
of a species kept as a domestic animal and which did not occur naturally in the wild can be declared. An established pest
is one which is established in the wild, poses a serious threat to primary production, crown land or community health in
Victoria and should be eradicated or controlled or its spread in the wild should be prevented (s67). Capra hircus (goat)
is listed in Schedule 4B which includes only the feral or wild populations of an established pest (Victorian Government
Gazette no S339 1st October 2010).
5
Determination: http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0008/137483/nrmbu_Chief_Officer_Det_for_Goats.pdf
page 15
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Wildlife Act 1975: Game licenses are issued under s22A of this Act.
Feral goats are not listed as game animals under this Act.6
Western Australia
Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act (ARRP Act) 1976: The object of this Act (s3) is to protect primary industries and
the resources related to primary industries. Thus includes the declaration of plants and animals in Part IV.
The feral goat has been declared as Category A4, A5 and A6 pest7. This declaration is in force for the whole state. The
categories are defined under s36(4) of the Act as follows:
(d) category A4 in respect of an area if the introduction of those animals into that area should, in the opinion of the
Protection Board, be subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by or under the regulations;
(e) category A5 in respect of an area if the numbers of those animals in that area should, in the opinion of the Protection
Board, be reduced and kept under restriction;
(f ) category A6 in respect of an area if the keeping of those animals in that area should, in the opinion of the Protection
Board, be subject to conditions and restrictions imposed by or under the regulations.
Under the ARRP Regulations 1985, under category A6 a permit is not required for feral goats that have been kept under
permit in a securely fenced enclosure for more than a month and are sufficiently domesticated that they will not escape
from an enclosure normally used for domestic goats (Schedule 2).8
The domestic goat is excluded from declaration except as specified for feral goat.
Assessment and Discussion
The legal status of the feral goat varies across jurisdictions in Australia and can be divided into two principle categories:
conservation and protection of land and production.
Both the Commonwealth and NSW have legislation under which feral goats have been listed as a threatening process. The
conservation objectives in the legislation of other states are not separated from land management objectives.
With the exception of NSW, all other states have declared the feral goat as a pest but the strength of the legislation in each
state is variable. The South Australian provisions require control across the state and extermination in specified locations.
South Australia and Western Australia also have regulations regarding domestic goats and re-domestication of feral goats
to reduce the likelihood of establishing additional feral populations. In both South and Western Australia feral goats
are recognised as a major agricultural and environmental pest as well as a commercial resource resulting in a complex
management problem and a major policy issue. This contrasts with Victoria where populations are generally small and
isolated and they are not a priority species for control actions, despite having been declared an established pest. It is also
notable that in Victoria where there is collaboration with hunting organisations for the control of declared pests, feral goats
have not been listed as game animals. While not declared a pest in NSW they are listed as game animals.
Given that the land management issues of feral goats in the western regions of NSW are similar to those in SA and WA it is
notable that there is a stark difference in the legal status of feral goats between NSW and the other two jurisdictions.
2.2.3 Ownership
Legislation
Commonwealth
EPBC Act 1999: The Threat Abatement Plan for the listing of Competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats as a
threatening process states that goats may be owned in the sense that access for harvesting or control is determined
by the owner or occupier of the land.
8
6
7
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenrt.nsf/childdocs/-7380F92E35E27D99CA2573750023D375-60D73B3E0C65C3CCCA257375002431D5?open
http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/vp/declared_animals.pdf
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/aarrpar1985673/sch2.html
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 16
New South Wales
Non-Indigenous Animals Act 1987:
s25(1) An authorised officer may seize or take control of an animal belonging to a controlled category … which is at
large
s25(2) An animal seized under this section becomes, upon seizure, the property of The Crown …
s6A(1) Classification of animals is to be based on
(a) The animal’s pest potential with respect to agricultural and pastoral interests and the environment
(b) The degree to which the animal, if actually or potentially a pest, is already established
Non-Indigenous Animals Regulation 2006
Feral goats are listed under Schedule 1 as category 5 (s4(1)(e) & s6 ‘Animals that are already widespread pests’).
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974:
Schedule 2: Goats Capra hircus are an introduced species of the Order Artiodactyla and are unprotected fauna
Under s97(2) protected fauna and other prescribed fauna as defined in s97(1) [generally native species, or protected fauna,
bred in captivity or transported into NSW] is the property of The Crown.
Ownership of unprotected fauna is not defined.
Deer Act 2006:
s4 Ownership of Deer [Living animal of the family Cervidae]
(1) Deer held in captivity may be bought, sold or otherwise dealt with or disposed of
(2) If a deer ceases to be held in captivity all property in the deer is immediately extinguished
(3) If a person captures a deer not held in captivity the person becomes the owner of the deer
(4) Unless it is captured within 2km of the enclosure
(5) Authorised persons or the occupier of land within 2km of the enclosure can kill a deer.
Assessment and discussion
Under NSW legislation unmanaged goats are unprotected fauna and as such are not the property of The Crown or the holder
of the land on which they are found. This status is clarified a little by the prescription provided by the threat abatement plan
under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) which states the landholder is the owner for harvesting or control purposes.
As noted previously, since unmanaged goats are neither native fauna nor domesticated stock, they are subject to common
law with some regulation by state and territory legislation. The importance of defining this issue lies in the determination
of who has the responsibility for care, welfare and the right to harvest and use the animals. This issue has been the subject
of concern by the Pastoral Board of South Australia who sought an opinion from the Crown Solicitor on the legal position
with regard to proprietary rights over feral goats (Pastoral Board of SA 2007). Given the similarity of the issues regarding
harvesting and control of feral goats in the pastoral lands of South Australia to those in Western NSW this opinion would
be of interest. I was unable to obtain a copy of this opinion.
In their analysis of legislation relating to ownership of camels in each Australian jurisdiction, Carey et al. (2008a) conclude
that there is no clear ownership regime but a defacto ownership through control of access to land. Unless they have been
given pest status there is also no obligation to control their numbers. This would change if the camel was to be declared a
pest in which case the landholder would be responsible for their control. Carey et al. suggest that it would be appropriate
for legislation that regulates how camels can be owned, taken and used to be made uniformly across Australia given the
cross-jurisdictional distribution of camels. However, governments would be reluctant to legislate for overall ownership by
The Crown as government would then be fully responsible for their control if required (Carey et al. 2008a).
The NSW Deer Act 2006 provides an example of an approach to legislation that could be used for defining ownership of
feral goats. In this legislation captive deer can be managed and dealt with as for any other domesticated stock. Once a
deer escapes from captivity it can be legally captured and owned by anyone who captures it outside a 2 km radius of the
original enclosure. For a feral population of a species such as the goat, the issues of control of a pest, if declared, would
have to be determined and defined within any new legislation. Rather than the crown assuming full ownership a dual
ownership approach might be defined with mutual benefit to the crown and landholders and, if appropriate, responsibility
for control determined.
There is a need for legislative clarification of this issue for any feral species that can cause land degradation and conservation
threats but which also has the potential for commercial use.
page 17
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
2.3 Legal obligations, policies and strategies for control of unmanaged
goats
2.3.1 Legal obligations
Legislation
Commonwealth
EPBC Act 1999 Threat Abatement Plan: This plan establishes a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s
response to the impacts of unmanaged goats (Capra hircus) on biodiversity. The role of the Commonwealth in managing
the listed Threatening Process is twofold:
i. The Commonwealth is responsible for the operation of the EPBC Act through focussing on Matters of National
Environmental Significance, actions of the Commonwealth and on Commonwealth areas (s3(2)(a)).
ii. By providing support, research and development for regional application. In particular the TAP states that
successful implementation will rely on a high level of cooperation between landholders, community groups, local
government, state and territory conservation and pest management agencies, and the Australian Government
and its agencies.
New South Wales
Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979: The Objects of the EPA Act (s5) include the encouragement of proper
management, development and conservation of natural resources and the principle of ecologically sustainable
development. s5A ‘Significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities and habitats specifies a
range of factors that must be taken into account when making a determination under this section’ includes the following
which are relevant to the legal obligations of feral goat management:
(2)(f ) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or a threat abatement
plan;
(2)(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the
operation of or increase the impact of a key threatening process
These requirements are part of the 7 part test of the impact of development proposals.
Ecologically sustainable development is specified in s6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991:
s6(2) Ecologically sustainable development requires effective integration of economic and environmental considerations
in decision making processes achieved through:
(a) Precautionary principle
(b) Intergenerational equity
(c) Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
The implementation of the TSC Act requires that certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development
of threatened species, populations and ecological communities be eliminated (s3(d)). This is provided for through the
declaration of a key threatening process (KTP) (s13) and implementation of a threat abatement plan (TAP) (Part 5) with
a view to the abatement, amelioration or elimination of the KTP (Notes to Part 5). The declaration of feral species as key
threatening processes places the responsibility on the NSW Government for the reduction of the impacts of feral animals
on both agriculture and biodiversity (English & Chapple 2002).
The TAP is a process for implementing strategic pest control initiatives statewide to protect biodiversity regardless of land
tenure. Previously plans for pest control have focussed on the protection of agricultural enterprises but this Act requires a
balance between conservation needs and production needs (English and Chapple 2002, Leys 2004). TAPs use an adaptive
management approach. The main objectives of a TAP are to:
• Target pest control across all land tenures where the pest impact on species or sites is likely to be greatest.
• Develop best practice guidelines maximising the effectiveness of control programs while minimising non-target
species
• Establish monitoring programs to demonstrate impacts and measure the effectiveness of the relevant control
programs
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 18
• Identify knowledge gaps and develop research proposals to fill those gaps
• Increase community education and involvement
(Leys 2004).
As yet there is no TAP for this threatening process despite it being a statutory requirement. A Statement of Intent (SoI)
is in the process of preparation but is incomplete and not yet endorsed. A NSW TAP, as for the Federal Government TAP
will focus on threatened entities vulnerable to impact from goats. A prioritisation of sites for feral goat management will
be developed, best management techniques identified and monitoring programs established (B. Russell DECCW pers.
comm. Oct 2010). Challenges for the development of an effective TAP to control feral goats result from the variation in
goat distribution, density and impact across the state in response to climate, topography and land use. In general a TAP
developed under the TSC Act focuses on conservation of threatened species and is therefore likely to be more focussed on
conservation lands (Leys 2004).
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
The Objects of this Act (s2A) include
(1) (a) the conservation of nature, including but not limited to the conservation of:
(i) habitat, ecosystems, & ecosystem processes
(ii) biological diversity at the community, species and genetic levels
(d) Providing for the management of land reserved under this Act in accordance with the management principles
applicable for each type of reservation
(2) Principles of ecologically sustainable development as in the s6 of the PoEA Act 1991.
Under this legislation the National Parks and Wildlife Service is only responsible for management of feral species on National
Park estate.
The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 requires a Plan of Management to be prepared for land reserved under this Act. The
objectives and content of plans of management are specified (s72AA (1)) and include:
(b) the conservation of biodiversity, including the maintenance of habitat, ecosystems and populations of threatened
species,
(p) the encouragement of appropriate research into natural and cultural features and processes, including threatening
processes,
(q) the identification and mitigation of threatening processes,
The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 also states that the Director-General shall: “… in the case of every national park,
historic site, nature reserve and Aboriginal area … arrange for the carrying out of such works as he considers necessary for or in
connection with the management and maintenance thereof …” (s8(3)(b)). Management control programs for introduced
animal species are considered to be such works (English & Chapple 2002).
Rural Lands Protection Act 1998
One of the objects of the RLP Act 1998 is to provide for control of pests through pest control orders and eradication orders
(s2A(i)). Once an order has been made it is the responsibility of the owner and occupier of the land, of both privately and
publically owned land, to carry out the order (s155 & 156). This includes the lessee of Crown land (s3). See Appendix 1 for
extracts from the RLP Act 1998.
Under s143 once a species has been declared it must be eradicated. Eradication is not defined in the RLP Act but a dictionary
definition is ‘to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate’. It is also defined as ‘to continuously suppress and destroy’ in the DECCW
Pest Management Strategy for the Far West Region (DECCW 2008a). Under this definition any species declared a pest under
the RLP Act may not be able to be used for commercial gain.
Western Lands Act 1901
Under the RLP Act 1998 it is the occupier of the land that is responsible for compliance with pest control orders. It is
therefore applicable to the leasehold lands of the Western Division. Additional conditions are imposed by the Western
Lands Act 1901 as provided for by the Objects of the Act and general lease conditions. The objects (s2) include the principles
of ecologically sustainable development (PoEA Act 1991) and social, economic and environmental interests of the Western
Division.
page 19
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
General lease conditions specified in Schedule 1 include
(b) to take, within a specified time, such steps and measures to destroy rabbits, dogs, and other vermin as the
Commissioner shall from time to time direct, and to keep the lease free of vermin during the currency of the lease
to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.
Feral goats are not currently (Dec 2010) subject of a direction from the Commissioner.
The Commissioner may also make direction regarding stocking levels as specified in s18D(d): A lessee shall take such
measures as the Commissioner may direct to protect the leased land from being overstocked (ii) and to prevent soil
erosion and other damage to the land as recommended by the Commissioner of the Soil Conservation Service (vi).
Other jurisdictions
South Australia
NRM Act 2004: It is the responsibility of the owner of the land to destroy or control declared animals (s182)
Queensland
LP(PSRM) Act 2002: A landowner must take reasonable steps to keep their land free of Class 2 pests (goats) unless they hold
a declared pest permit allowing the pests to be kept on the land. Control is the responsibility of every landholder (Qld SoE
1999).
Victoria
CaLP Act 1994: The land owner must take reasonable steps for the control of an established pest on their land (s74B).
National Parks Act 1975: The department must control exotic fauna in National Park estate.
Western Australia
ARRP Act 1976: Responsibilities are clearly stated:
•
A government department is to control declared animals in relation to public land under its control (s39).
•
Local Government will control declared animals in relation to public land under its control (s42).
•
An occupier of privately owned land must notify the protection board of the presence or sign of any declared
animals (s48) and control any declared animals found on the land (s49). Private land is defined as including
freehold and leasehold (crown) land (s7).
Assessment and discussion
In all jurisdictions it is the responsibility of the land occupier to control declared animal species on their land. This includes
the control of feral goats except in NSW where it is not a declared pest species and there is no obligation for control on
freehold or leasehold lands. While there is provision for control of vermin through the Western Lands Act there is no current
requirement for goat control.
In NSW the declaration of feral goats as a key threatening process does create some obligations through the EPA Act and
the PoEA Act in which the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and assessment using the 7 part test, require
that the impact of a KTP be considered. Without a TAP there is little direction for the implementation of additional control
plans for agricultural land. Feral goats are, however, considered a high priority issue by the NPWS and they are obligated
by the NPW Act to mitigate threatening processes and prepare management plans which include pest management. In
general there has been a higher level of compliance for feral animal control on reserve land than off reserve (English and
Chapple 2002).
By listing unmanaged goats as a KTP the Commonwealth Government is obligated to implement control on land they
manage. It also commits the government to a significant role in the support of research and development of techniques
and regional strategies and to a key role in encouraging co-operation between stakeholders.
If the detrimental impact of feral goats in Western NSW, in particular their contribution to total grazing pressure, is quantified
and monitored a case for their declaration as a pest may be developed. However, the current legislation through the RLP
Act 1998 does not easily allow for the declaration of established pests as does the legislation in South Australia, Western
Australia and Victoria. The approach of the legislation in these jurisdictions, especially SA and WA may be appropriate for
consideration in NSW.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 20
2.3.2 Current policies, strategies and programs
Commonwealth:
Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community)
This plan identifies the research, management and other actions needed to ensure the long-term survival of native species
and ecological communities affected by competition and land degradation caused by unmanaged goats. Regional
coordination is the preferred strategy and this is coordinated under the Australian Pest Animal Strategy (DEWHA 2008b).
The TAP has five main objectives. To:
1. prevent unmanaged goats occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate them from high-conservation-value
‘islands’;
2. promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological communities that are affected by
competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats;
3. improve knowledge and understanding of unmanaged goat impacts and interactions with other species and other
ecological processes;
4. improve the effectiveness, target specificity and humaneness of control options for unmanaged goats; and
5. increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of the TAP, and of the need to control unmanaged
goats.
Success of the TAP will depend on all participants assessing the impact of unmanaged goats and allocating adequate
resources to achieve effective on-ground control of unmanaged goats at critical sites, improving the effectiveness of
control programs, and measuring and assessing outcomes. Programs in natural resource management, at national, state
and regional levels, will assist stakeholders to make significant contributions to implementing the plan.
An important element of the TAP under the EPBC Act 1999 is the requirement that unmanaged goats should be controlled
in the context of grazing management (TGP) and that this is determined through regional priority actions. There are also
obligations for controlling a threatening process under cultural legislation.
Australian Pest Animal Strategy (APAS) (ABARES Dept Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries)
This is a national strategy for the management of vertebrate pest animals in Australia (NRMMC 2007). It was developed for the
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. This council has been convened to facilitate national implementation of
plans and proposals which would otherwise not occur due to the division of constitutional powers between the National
and State/Territory Governments. Its objective is to promote the sustainable use of Australia’s natural resources.9
This strategy is a fundamental part of the Australian Biosecurity System for Primary Production and the Environment
(AusBIOSEC). The vision and principles of the APAS have been provided in Section 1.2 of this report and as previously
noted should underpin the policy framework and management plan for unmanaged goats in Western NSW. It is also
noted that while the Australian Government has responsibilities to coordinate, facilitate and promote national pest animal
management policies and programs it is the responsibility of state and territory governments to encourage responsible
pest animal management by providing a suitable institutional and legislative framework and developing and implementing
effective policies and programs (p4 NRMMC 2007).
This strategy does not list any specific pest animals to be addressed by the goals and objectives but feral goats are a priority
pest species under the Commonwealth funded Australian Pest Animal Research Program (APARP).10
Australian Pest Animal Research Program (ABARES, Dept Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries)
This research program is aligned with the goals and objectives of the APAS and provides funding for research projects
that are designed to develop and promote improved approaches to the management and monitoring of agricultural pest
animals. More specifically the principles underlying the APAMP are to:
1. manage actual rather than perceived impacts
2. use impact-based management rather than pest-based management.
3. focus on strategic management.
4. manage at the local or regional scale rather than the property scale to increase efficiency of management.
9
10
http://www.mincos.gov.au/about_nrmmc Accessed August 2010
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/land/feral-animals/aparp Accessed August 2010
page 21
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
5. encourage the commercial use of pest animals to improve the economic feasibility of pest management.
6. continuing development of more humane pest management techniques and strategies.
These principles underpin the following objectives of the APAMP which are to:
• develop integrated strategic approaches to manage the impacts of nationally significant pest animals on
agriculture;
• improve the effectiveness of control techniques and strategies for reducing pest animal impacts on agriculture;
• produce guidelines and extension materials for the best practice management of nationally significant pest
animals;
• quantify the benefits of pest animal management.11
Although feral goats are a priority pest species there are no projects directly addressing the control of this species in the
2009-10 projects but there are two projects directed towards capacity building that will be of benefit for control strategies.
These are:
1. FeralScan – web-based community reporting, education and extension tool for landholders and community groups.
This project is designed to develop web-based reporting tools to fill existing gaps in the process of pest management.
This is being conducted by Industry & Investment NSW.
2. PestSmart: Development and promotion of farmer, landcare and regional end user pest animal capacity building
management packages. The objectives of this project being carried out by the Invasive Animals CRC are to identify
preferred communication and capacity building pathways and adoption networks and then develop information
toolkits for pest animal managers.12
New South Wales
NSW Invasive Species Plan 2008-2015 (Dept Industry & Investment)
The NSW Invasive Species Plan provides the framework for the coordinated management of weeds and pests across all
land tenures. The overall aim of this plan is to prevent new incursions, contain existing populations and adaptively manage
widespread species such as feral goats. As for the federal initiatives through the threat abatement plan under the EPBC
Act 1999 (Cth) and the Australian Pest Animal Strategy, the NSW Invasive Species Plan promotes a cooperative culture
with all relevant stakeholders contributing to minimising the impacts of invasive species in NSW. It presents a risk-based
approach and complements the APAS, NSW Biodiversity Strategy, NSW Biosecurity Strategy, and the NSW Natural Resources
Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy amongst others (DI&I 2008).
The principles for Invasive species management that underpin this plan are planning, effective management and ethics.
The important elements of these principles include:
Planning – clear definition of issues before the implementation of control strategies; use of the best available
knowledge; cost effective strategies including early detection and rapid response; community involvement in
programs; development of sound policy and legislative frameworks.
Effective management – targeted, coordinated and integrated programs which align with the national strategies; use
of adaptive management and monitoring to adjust strategies when circumstances change; ensure strategies reflect
changing environmental conditions; ensure control measures are appropriately targeted; adequate monitoring to
determine effectiveness of the strategies; prioritise management strategies that will provide the greatest benefits.
Ethics - management options use risk management systems; cost-effectiveness, humaneness and target-specificity
are balanced; the variety of social and ethical values is recognised; the inherent value of native species and natural
ecosystems is recognised; best practice approaches reduce adverse effects of chemicals on beneficial species and the
environment; integrated pest and weed management techniques are used where appropriate.
Two of the four goals of the NSW Invasive Species Plan are most relevant for the control and management of feral goat
populations. Effective management is targeted to the reduction of impacts of widespread invasive species. It is too late for
exclusion, eradication or containment so the challenge is to manage or control these species, maximising the benefits of
the measures implemented. In order to achieve this, the fourth goal of the plan, Capacity, is critical. This requires ensuring
that NSW has the knowledge base, skills, resources and systems to address the impacts of invasive species. An important
objective in ensuring the state capacity is Objective 4.10 which addresses the need to ensure that legislation for effective
management of invasive species and appropriate enforcement is in place.
11
12
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/land/feral-animals/aparp Accessed August 2010
ibid
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 22
Vertebrate Pest Control Manual 2008 (Dept Industry & Investment)
This manual is intended to promote uniform standards of control, administration and safety throughout NSW. The strategic
approach for feral goat management at a regional and local level contains four components: clear definition of the problem;
development of a management plan; implementation; evaluation. The manual begins with a chapter on legislative and
policy requirements for pest animal management (DI&I NSW 2008).
DECCW Regional Pest Management Strategies 2008-2011
Pest management strategies have been developed for all National Parks and Wildlife regions in NSW. These strategies are
developed to provide a strategic approach for pest management within the National Park estate. The control of pests outside
NPWS estate is the responsibility of landholders and other agencies, as previously discussed, and this is incorporated into
the NSW Invasive Species Plan. DECCW is a partner to the Invasive Species Plan through the Regional Pest Management
Strategies. Both the plan and the strategies have similar objectives of prioritising control efforts to maximise the benefits.
The DECCW Far West Region covers the majority of the rangelands of Western NSW with the remainder being part of the
Upper Darling Region and the Northern Plains Region. The pest management objectives and principles are clearly stated
in the Strategy for the Far West Region (DECCW 2008a). The overriding objective is to minimise adverse impacts of pests on
biodiversity and other park values while also complying with legislative responsibilities. This is to be achieved by managing
pest populations to minimise their impact on neighbours, increase community understanding of the adverse impact of
pests on biodiversity and Aboriginal and historical cultural heritage and support cooperative approaches and participation
in pest management programs with the community and other agencies (p12). The principles are also in accord with the
principles espoused in the Australian Pest Animal Strategy and the NSW Invasive Species Plan. The principles, priorities and
plans for monitoring and regional co-ordination are reproduced in Appendix 2.
The management strategy developed for feral goat control is to monitor their distribution and population size, evaluate
the methods and make changes in response to that review, and monitor goat populations where control measures have
been carried out. Monitoring programs include aerial and ground visual assessments, vegetation monitoring and assessing
the impact of threatened species through surveys of those species. The Upper Darling and Northern Plains Regional Pest
Management Strategies have a similar approach to the Far West Region Strategy (DECCW 2008b, c).
Other DECCW invasive species management plans
The control of feral horses and deer in National Park estate in NSW has been the subject of specific management plans in
response to controversy surrounding the management of these introduced species.
The controversy surrounding the management of feral horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park led to an external review
of horse culling operations and protocols to cull feral animals more broadly by the National Parks and Wildlife Service
(English 2000, 2002). Specific wild horse management plans have been prepared for Guy Fawkes River, Oxley Wild Rivers
and Kosciusko National Parks (NSW NPWS 2006a, b, 2008) but aerial culling is not included in the methods advocated in the
plans despite approval of the methods by the review. The approach in each of these management plans is similar to the
principles in the DECCW regional pest management strategies and includes an assessment of the environmental damage
caused by the wild horses and the need for control, a public consultation process, establishment of the humane methods
of control to be used and a monitoring and review process.
The development of a management plan for deer in Royal National Park, as required by the park plan of management,
became necessary when research indicated that the Rusa Deer population in the park had increased and was having a
significant detrimental effect on the native flora and fauna, especially on the listed endangered ecological communities
in the park. The management of the deer populations was essential for the protection of the ecological integrity of this
park. The problem caused by the increasing deer populations was not confined to the park with increasing social impacts
through collisions with motor vehicles and trains and damage to gardens. The option of not controlling deer in the park
was considered inconsistent with the statutory obligations of the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
As stated in the Deer Management Plan (p13 NSW NPWS 2005):
‘The aim of the Plan is to manage deer populations to minimise negative impacts in Royal National Park and other
conservation areas in the Sydney South Region, and to minimise other socio-economic impacts on the community.
This will be achieved through six key objectives:
1. Review the operation of the deer management program over the last three years and identify options for improving
the efficiency of the program;
page 23
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
2. Reduce the number of deer in populations which impact negatively on the natural environment of Royal National
Park and other reserves managed within the Sydney South Region;
3. Foster cooperative approaches for the management of deer on and adjacent to the reserves managed by the
National Parks and Wildlife Service;
4. Improve community and stakeholder appreciation of the issues related to the management of introduced animals
and the urgent need to manage deer populations in conservation areas;
5. Foster research on deer including studies on effective, humane and safe methods of population control; and
6. Establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the Plan.
The principles of assessment, control using cooperative arrangements, research, review and monitoring are fundamental
elements of this management plan.
Wollongong City Council Policy: Vertebrate Pest Management
This policy was developed by Wollongong City Council in response to increasing issues relating to the impact of feral deer on
land management and the community, in addition to other feral vertebrate species. Council recognised a need to implement
a coordinated approach as an element of its overall land management strategy. The principles of the policy include the need
for an integrated approach, early detection of newly emerging pests, appropriately defined objectives and the use of best
practice methods (Wollongong City Council 2010). This policy is in accordance with the NSW Invasive Species Plan.
Other jurisdictions
South Australia
The South Australian (SA) Government has a policy specifically relating to feral goats (SA Govt 2005). The focus of both the
legislation in SA and this policy is twofold: firstly on the reduction of environmental harm caused by feral goat populations
and secondly the need to reduce the likelihood of domesticated goats or re-domesticated feral goats escaping and causing
damage. This is evident in the policy objectives:
1. To protect the environment from damage caused by feral and escaped domestic goats;
2. To protect primary producers from other hazards occasioned by feral and escaped domestic goats;
3. To ensure that re-domesticated feral goats are properly confined and do not escape; and
4. To minimise the cost to the domestic goat industry of implementing the above objectives.
The potential for goats to become feral is further emphasised throughout the policy while also stating that landholders
must control the number of feral goats on their property to an acceptable level. The prohibition of goats from specified
areas, as enshrined in the legislation is reinforced as is the fencing standard for keeping domestic goats. The high level of
concern regarding escape of domestic goats is also highlighted in the annual reports of the Pastoral Board (Pastoral Board
of South Australia 2007 & 2009). Commercial use of feral goats is not addressed in this policy.
Goat control in the Flinders Ranges has been a critical activity for the ‘Bounceback Project’ carried out by the SA Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. This project was developed to control the extensive environmental damage caused
by goat grazing and the impact this was having on the survival of the yellow-footed rock-wallaby populations. The broad
aims of the project are to:
‘Link efforts to conserve and enhance biodiversity across the region, with particular focus of core areas including
pastoral properties in the Olary Ranges, the Flinders Ranges National Park and Vulkathunha-Gammon Ranges National
Park and the Gawler Ranges National Park; remove the major threats to biodiversity and ecological integrity in the
region; develop and demonstrate a best-practice model of ecological management.’13
Victoria
Since feral goats are not a high priority pest species in Victoria there is no specific policy or management plan for this
species. The Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework provides the overarching approach of the Victorian Government
to the management of existing and potential invasive species within the context of the Victorian biosecurity strategy
(DPI Vic 2010). The approach is based on prevention, eradication, containment and asset based protection. Monitoring,
evaluation, research and development are also key elements of the framework. Other important elements include effective
engagement with stakeholders to improve the management of invasive species, consideration of legislative reform to
support the framework and targeting government investment to maximise public benefit.
13
The Bounceback Project http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/programs/bounceback_project.html Accessed October 2010.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 24
The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment has also instigated a Good Neighbour Program: neighbours
working together across public and private land. The objective of this program is to build positive relations with neighbours
and be a good neighbour through weed and pest control on public land, incorporate community priorities and actions
in weed and pest management, support community based programs on adjoining private land and integrate pest
management into NRM objectives. This approach has included funding of 400-500 projects since it was introduced in the
1990s.14 This has included projects to control foxes, rabbits, pigs and wild dogs.15
Queensland
The Queensland State Land Pest Management Strategy (2008) has been developed to conform with Queensland
Government Policy on the management of pests on State Land and to comply with the Land Protection (Pest and Stock
Route Management Act) 2002 and Regulation 2003. The State Land Pest Management Committee formed under the Act
is tasked with improving management of pests on state controlled land, coordination to achieve consistency between
agencies, facilitate implementation and integration of plans and annually review the effectiveness of the pest control plans
for state lands. Broadly the strategy includes a pro-active approach and opportunities for partnerships.
The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency also has a pest management plan developed for the management of
National Park estate (Qld Govt EPA 2003). The strategies of this plan provide a framework for achieving the pest management
objectives of:
• managing cooperatively the ecological, social and economic impacts of the current and potential pest animal and
weed problems on Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) managed areas; and
• Ensuring pest management on QPWS managed areas is:
o Aligned with state government and departmental policies
o Properly planned and executed to produce tangible long-term benefits.’
This includes developing awareness and education programs, collating information and data, effective communication
and planning, maintenance of natural and cultural integrity, management of existing pests, adequate resourcing and
monitoring and evaluation.
The Queensland EPA policy also includes the principles outlined in the EPA Good Neighbour Policy.16 The objectives of this
policy are to:
• ‘promote co-operation and exchange of information between landholders and QPWS;
• establish guidelines for positive relationships between QPWS, neighbours and local communities, based on mutual
respect, understanding and recognition of the rights and responsibilities of all landholders, and
• clearly outline the approach of QPWS on a range of land management issues needing cooperative management,
including fire management, control of pest plants and feral animals, management of native animals, and the use of
pesticides and other substances.’17
Commercial goat harvesting is clearly recognised by the Queensland Government as an integral part of the control of feral
goats. It is noted however that for goat harvesting operations to be viable, capture methods must be economical and this
varies with market influences. More expensive control methods are justified if there is a need to control exotic diseases or
for environmental protection. A combination of techniques over large areas is considered the most effective control.18
Western Australia
As for other jurisdictions, Western Australia (WA) has used a range of species-specific measures for controlling feral species.
From 1977 to 1985, for example, bounties were paid on goat ears to encourage killing of unmarketable mustered goats
rather than releasing them. This program was discontinued after 120,000 bounties paid (Parkes et al. 1996).
A Feral Goat Farmnote (2000, reviewed 2007) outlines the issues regarding feral goats, control methods and their
management in pastoral areas (James 2007). In this, the aim of the Agriculture Protection Board (APB) is stated as reducing
numbers or maintaining them at a level that ensures minimal environmental impact on the rangelands. Population
numbers have been monitored by aerial survey and these survey results provided to landholders. Pastoralists are then
encouraged to formulate management strategies to reduce and manage feral goats to minimise impacts.
14
15
Victorian DSE Good neighbour program brochure http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/1DA9D415DC0E330ECA2574FD00126A58/$File/
GNP+DL+Brochure+v520080908.pdf Accessed September 2010
Victorian DSE Good neighbour program achievements 2007-8 http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/05C99A77AD217FBECA2574FD001284 A0/$File/gnp+achievements.pdf Accessed September 2010
page 25
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
The Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 and the Land Act 1933 in WA also oblige the landowner or manager to avoid actions
that will cause land degradation and if contravened leases could be forfeited. This is rarely used, with peer pressure amongst
land managers being the driving force behind goat management in WA. This has resulted in community cooperation and
coordination of goat control (Parkes et al. 1996). Goats are targeted by the Department of Environment and Conservation
in three northern National Parks: Kennedy Range, Cape Range and Kalbarri.19
Commercial utilisation of the goat resource is also permitted by the APB under strict conditions. Pastoralists are permitted
to muster and remove feral goats to the abattoirs or for live export. Feral goats may also be domesticated but only under
specifications set out by the APB. This includes marking as set out by the Stock (Identification and Movement) Act 1970.
Mustered goats that are not sold must be destroyed (James 2007). Mustering for commercial sale achieves an initial
knockdown and is followed by aerial and ground shooting in an attempt to kill the remaining animals (Parkes et al. 1996).
In addition to species-specific requirements, the WA Department of Agriculture and Food has prepared a monitoring
framework for ecologically significant invasive species for use by natural resource management (NRM) groups (De Milliano
et al. 2010). While there are some differences between this framework and others produced recently by other jurisdictions,
there are also similarities in the key messages. These include the categorisation of invasive species to a prevention,
eradication, containment, or management strategy and a detailed monitoring strategy (De Milliano et al. 2010).
Assessment and discussion
The current policies, strategies and programs across Australian jurisdictions fit into two categories:
1. Broad invasive species frameworks which reflect the Commonwealth Australian Pest Animal Strategy and are linked
to biosecurity issues in each state. These do not address individual species but provide approaches that can be
developed into species specific policies.
2. Species-specific policies and programs which address issues directly applicable to goat management.
The current species-specific policies and strategies include the Commonwealth threat abatement plan and the South
Australian policy relating to feral goats. NSW National Park management strategies and plans also directly address feral
goat control as does the NSW DI&I Vertebrate Pest Control Manual. Farmnotes and fact sheets from Western Australia
and Queensland appear to be targeted at informing the public rather than a government endorsed feral goat policy.
The absence of a Threat Abatement Plan in NSW to support the declaration of feral goats as a threatening process is a
significant gap in feral goat control planning in NSW.
The higher level frameworks all consistently specify the fundamental need for coordinated and integrated strategies
across all land tenures, including community involvement. The value of this has been demonstrated through the success
of the Good Neighbour programs in Queensland and Victoria and the ‘Bounceback’ program in South Australia. This
communication with stakeholders is especially important in defusing some of the conflicting views that exist across the
community. National Parks are frequently accused of being a harbour for feral animals and for not undertaking feral animal
control. Conversely, poor land management, including overgrazing, is perceived as the cause of land degradation. As is
clear from the DECCW Regional Pest Management Strategies, feral animal control is a major annual management cost and
while there is no overall state goat management policy, 46,000 goats were removed from NSW National Parks in 2009. If
feral vertebrates are to be controlled, broadscale land management issues must also be addressed. Inappropriate land
management is a pre-cursor to feral animal problems (English and Chapple 2002).
2.4 Control of unmanaged goat populations
2.4.1 Pest or resource?
The declaration of unmanaged goats as an ‘established pest’ by most Australian jurisdictions demonstrates that the
eradication of this species has become an impossible task. Strategic management is a more attainable goal and this
approach is preferred in the various invasive species frameworks for widespread, established pests. It has been proposed
that conservation and commercial use objectives be aligned, with commercial harvesting being the primary form of control
outside reserves (Hart 2005, DEWHA 2008a). However, this can create conflicting objectives between pest management
and their value as a resource.
18
19
16
17
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p01658aa.pdf Accessed September 2010
ibid
Fact sheet http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Feral-Goat-PA18.pdf Accessed September 2010
http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/view/2547/1630/ Accessed September 2010
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 26
As suggested by West & Saunders (2007), commercial harvesting of feral goats can reduce goat density in NSW but there
is also evidence that the value of harvesting as a control technique is dependent on their market value. This is highlighted
in the DECCW Far West Region Pest Management Strategy 2008-2011 in which ‘goat farming’ in National Parks is cited as
an emerging issue. In this context ‘goat farming’ refers to animals mustered and trapped by contractors that are below a
saleable weight being released back onto reserves, to be recaptured when they have reached a financially productive
weight. One strategy employed on Mutawintji National Park is to employ three contractors on a monthly rotation – one
contractor will not release goats for the subsequent contractor (DECCW 2008a p20).
A key element of the Commonwealth Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) is that it supports rangeland goats being managed
by landholders for production but that this needs to be within the context of sustaining biodiversity values and grazing
management (DEWHA 2008a). The most effective approach to reconciling these issues is for a regional approach to
be adopted which could clarify the management aims by targeting local or regional circumstances and provide for
coordination of all land managers (DEWHA 2008a).
A national survey of feral goat control by Reddiex et al. (2006) found that sustained control (84%) rather than eradication
(16%) was the primary objective. The focus of this analysis predominantly included conservation lands and the control
actions were mostly for habitat and threatened species conservation rather than the protection of agricultural values.
The majority of these control programs were in NSW. In 2002/3 53,000 square kilometres was subject to goat control, a
substantial increase from 1998-2001 (Reddiex et al. 2006). In the Far West Region of DECCW in NSW feral goats occur on
eleven of the 14 reserves with scattered infestations on seven and widespread infestation of four. There are also widespread
populations in the reserves of the Cobar and Bourke areas and scattered populations in the Dubbo area. Control programs
have been implemented in all these reserves (DECCW 2008a, b, c).
2.4.2 Culling of feral goat populations
There are several methods used to control feral goat populations. These include mustering, ground and aerial shooting,
trapping, exclusion fencing and the use of a ‘Judas goat’. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been prepared for
all these goat control methods by Trudy Sharp and Glen Saunders (DI&I 200420). Some elements of these SOPs are noted
here but the full text is reproduced in Appendix 3. They have been prepared under the Natural Heritage Trust (Australian
Government) and adopted by State and Territory Government Departments. The underlying theme in all these operating
procedures is the need for a strategic approach as part of a coordinated sustained, effective control program. It is also
noted that the SOPs are only a guide and do not override any relevant State or Territory legislation including OH&S, Animal
Welfare and firearms.
Mustering
Mustering can be successfully used for reducing goat populations and the costs can be offset by their sale. On pastoral
land mustering is mostly carried out opportunistically when large groups have gathered, often near water during dry
periods. Goats are most often mustered by motor bike or horse, assisted by working dogs. Aerial mustering (light aircraft
or helicopters) can also be used, especially to flush them out of rough country. This technique, with skilled operators, can
reduce population size by 80% in rugged country (DI&I NSW 2008). Commercial mustering can reduce densities to about
one per square kilometre economically. It is not viable at lower densities (Appendix 3.3: SOP GOA003).
Animal welfare considerations for both target and non-target species, health and safety considerations, equipment and
procedures are all addressed in this SOP which is reproduced in full in Appendix 3.3.
Trapping
Trapping goats at watering points can be more effective than mustering especially when densities are low. It is based
on self-mustering techniques developed for sheep and cattle in the rangelands. Trapping is most effective during dry
conditions but not if other water sources are readily available. Traps are a goat-proof fence with one way gates/ramps
constructed around a watering point. They can be costly to build but are more cost effective than mustering and less
stressful to the goats. The traps must be checked regularly to ensure adequate water and to avoid starvation and stress of
the trapped animals, and trapping of non target species such as macropods and emus can be a significant problem. The
cost of this technique can be offset by commercial use of the stock but if there is no market and removal is too costly the
goats can be destroyed by shooting (DI&I NSW 2008, SOP GOA004 Appendix 3.4).
page 27
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Judas goats
The Judas goat technique is used to locate groups that are difficult to locate by the other methods. These groups are
usually very wary animals which have survived other control efforts and population density is low. As a social species, goats
are well suited to this technique which involves radio-collaring and releasing a trapped feral goat, which is most likely to
seek other goats in the area. The group can then be located by radio-tracking and mustered or shot by hunters. If the Judas
goat is not shot at that time it will move away and locate more goat groups. It is a particularly useful technique in rugged
or densely vegetated areas. It is an expensive technique requiring skilled operators but is particularly useful if eradication is
the objective of the operation. This technique is target specific so has little or no impact on non-target animals (DI&I NSW
2008, SOP GOA005 Appendix 3.5).
Ground shooting
This method of control is commonly used by vertebrate pest control officers, landholders, and experienced professional
and amateur hunters. It is most successful in open pastoral areas in which the shooter has a clear view of the animal. It can
be humane if the appropriate firearm, ammunition and shot placement are used and the animal is within range. It is most
frequently used as a follow up after mustering or aerial shooting. Dry conditions provide more opportunity for successfully
using ground shooting as a control technique with goats aggregating at watering points. It is less effective and potentially
less humane in inaccessible or rough terrain (Appendix 3.1: SOP GOA001; DI&I 2008).
Goats ‘living in the wild’ have been declared as game animals under s5(2)(d) of the Game and Feral Animal Control Act (GFAC)
2002. The Objects of this Act include the effective management of introduced species of game animals and promotion of
orderly and responsible hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public
land (s3 (a) & (b)). This Act is administered by the Game Council which provides hunting licenses. A game hunting licence
is not required for hunting goats on private land but is required if hunting animals living in the wild on public land (s5(2)).
Hunting by licensed amateurs can occur on designated State Forests but not National Park estate.
In addition to complying with the GFAC Act 2002 amateur hunters wishing to be involved in feral animal control on private
land must comply with the Firearms Act 1996 and the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. All firearms must be licensed, registered
and stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner (s3). Property access is an additional important matter in the use of
amateur hunters for feral goat control. A problem exists in the Western Division of NSW with hunters entering properties
without permission, leaving gates open, campfires burning and rubbish (P Weston pers. comm.). The licensing system of the
Game Council of NSW provides a mechanism for controlling amateur hunting on private land. When granting a license for
hunting on private land the Council indicates that permission must be obtained from the landowner before accessing the
land and the landowner has the right to request seeing the license before allowing access.21
Volunteer shooters have been successfully used in Operation Bounceback in the Flinders Ranges22 however it is necessary
to have well defined objectives and efficient coordination of the volunteers (DEWHA 2008a).
Aerial shooting
Aerial shooting, generally from helicopters, is an expensive but effective control method. It has been used to reduce
populations at both high and low densities and is particularly effective in rugged terrain. It becomes less effective, however,
if used repeatedly as the goats become wary of helicopters. Evidence demonstrates that initial cull rates are usually high
but can be as low as 21% of known animals in subsequent culls. NSW Government and semi-government employees are
trained and accredited for aerial shooting from helicopters under the ‘Feral Animal Aerial Shooting Team’ (FAAST) system.
All aerial culling programs conducted by government or semi-government employees must be conducted according to
FAAST protocols (DI&I 2008). Under these protocols aerial culling is a humane method of controlling feral vertebrates. As for
the other methods of control, the application and protocols for aerial shooting are set out in the SOP GOA002 (Appendix
3.2).
Aerial culling of feral vertebrates has been a highly controversial method for feral animal control in National Parks,
stemming from an outcry against aerial shooting of wild horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park. Despite an independent
investigation into this operation finding that the operation conducted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, in
particular the FAAST protocols and training, was appropriate and humane, aerial culling of horses has been banned as
a technique for management of wild horses in National Parks (English 2000, 2001, 2002). Aerial shooting is considered
to be the only practical method for quick, large-scale and humane culling of large animals in inaccessible locations. This
view is shared by the NSW Pest Animal Council (which has RSPCA membership) and the Australian Veterinary Association,
provided that the shooting is always done by trained and accredited personnel operating under strict guidelines as part of
a government pest control program (English 2000).
20
http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au Accessed September 2010
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 28
Fencing
Fencing has been used to control goat movements but is expensive to install and maintain. The intelligence and climbing
ability of goats create a challenge to designing goat-proof fencing (DI&I 2008). This challenge is clearly highlighted by the
rigorous fencing specifications required in South Australia (SA Govt 2005) and Western Australia (Gray & Massam 2001) for
the containment of re-domesticated feral goats. The potential for reintroduction of poorly contained goats retained for
commercial use is a key concern in these two jurisdictions and an important element of their goat control policies.
Predation
There is evidence that the presence of dingoes in areas occupied by feral goats has maintained the population size at
much lower levels. Goats were present through the Kimberley region of Western Australia in the 1950s and 1960s but since
dingo control was reduced with the change from sheep to cattle as the preferred stock in the region, goats have mostly
been eliminated. Similarly in northern South Australia goats disappeared when dingo control ceased with the change from
sheep to cattle and there is additional circumstantial evidence of this effect of the presence of dingoes in the northern
Flinders Ranges and Musgrave Ranges. Conversely there are areas in the Great Dividing Range where dingoes and goats
co-exist (Parkes et al. 1996). In their examination of the ecological status of both sides of the dingo fence in semi-arid
Australia Newsome et al. (2001) also concluded that there was evidence that dingoes play an important role in the control
of feral pests including goats.
The science of predator–prey interactions and the role of controlling the large predator from the Australian ecosystem
is currently the subject of detailed investigation (Johnson 2006, Letnic 2007). While it is a controversial suggestion for
Western NSW with sheep production continuing to be an important landuse in this area, it should be acknowledged as
one of a suite of control measures for feral goats.
Biological control
There is currently no biological control developed for goats. The development and use of this method would pose a
dilemma for any proposal to commercially utilise unmanaged goats.
2.4.3 Commercial use of feral goats
The commercial use of unmanaged goats is a highly volatile industry subject to price fluctuations, climatic influences on
population size, costs of harvesting and the perceived need by the landholder to control goats. Commercial use includes
the use of field shot animals to supply the game meat market or live harvested animals to supply the live export trade or
abattoirs producing meat for the chilled or frozen market. Meat and hides are both valued and live animals are exported
to Asia and the Middle East. Breeding stock can also be obtained from the feral population but as has previously been
indicated, these individuals need to be kept in goat-proof yards to prevent escape (DEWHA 2008a).
The commercial value of unmanaged goats can provide an incentive for goat harvesting with the additional benefit of
land conservation. There is, however, a danger that this will result in less effective control. West & Saunders (2007) note that
any positive values from goats as a resource are far outweighed by the negative effects of land degradation, especially if
the long term impacts are considered. In 2004-06 commercial harvesting was carried out in 17 of 48 RLPB districts (West
& Saunders 2007).
An evaluation of commercial harvesting as a pest management strategy is currently being undertaken by Dr Steve McLeod
through the Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). In this project the question of whether commercial
harvesting will reduce pest numbers to a level at which their environmental impact is minimised is being assessed. When
does commercial harvesting contribute to pest management, how much does it contribute to both production and
conservation goals and what influence do markets have on the profitability and sustainability of commercial feral goat
harvesting?23
A commercial harvesting program is not compatible with the management objectives of feral goat control in the
conservation estate. Management objectives are primarily to maintain goat numbers at levels which have no significant
impact on the conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of resilient ecosystem function (DEWHA 2008a). These
regionally conflicting aims and the fact that the commercial harvesting of unmanaged goats will not provide effective
21
22
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=HuntPrivate Accessed November 2010
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/programs/bounceback_project.html Accessed October 2010.
page 29
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
population control reinforce the need to develop regionally appropriate strategies for goat control. A regional approach
would enable management aims to be clarified, coordination of land managers actions and integrate management of
feral goats across all land tenures and terrain (DEWHA 2008a). It is important that commercial harvesting be used to only
remove goats from the easily accessible and cost effective landscape to the exclusion of more rugged or densely vegetated
land or low density populations.
Transport and sale
Requirements for movement of goats in NSW, detailed in PRIMEFACT 949 (Taylor & Evers 2010) are:
• Goats entering and moving within NSW must have an approved National Livestock Identification System (NLIS)
tag;
• Goats moving within NSW must be accompanied by fully completed documentation, either a national vendor
declaration or a transported stock statement
• Goat movements must be notified to the NLIS database within 7 days.
The NLIS requires that all livestock be marked with an approved NLIS tag that has a property identification code printed
on it. This system provides for all stock being moved around the country, between properties or to abattoirs, saleyards,
feedlots or goat depots to be traced. It is illegal to remove any NLIS tag. These requirements apply to commercial, feral,
rangelands and pet goats. An NLIS tag is not required for feral goats being taken directly from the property where captured
to a goat depot, but they still require a national vendor declaration form.
The Model Code of Practice for the welfare of Animals: The Goat (SCARM Report no 32) and The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act 1979 (PoCTA) provide minimum animal welfare requirements for the keeping of goats, and all other animals, in NSW.
The welfare of animals transferred to and from Australia is required to meet international standards and guidelines including
those of the World Organisation for Animal Health and the International Air Transport Association. There are also national
guidelines for the land transport of livestock.24
Management of exotic diseases
Additional requirements in PRIMEFACT 949 are specifically directed towards to management of exotic diseases. In particular
the requirement of notification of the NLIS database within seven days enables rapid containment of any serious disease
outbreaks. Under the NSW Stock diseases Act 1923 it is the responsibility of the occupier of the land to notify the appropriate
authorities of any diseases declared under the Act.
The disease management requirements include:
• Strict footrot requirements since all NSW is a footrot protected area and notification and quarantine measures
apply;
• Goats with Johne’s disease are only allowed to enter NSW if being transported directly to slaughter. Stock from
Tasmania and King Island require a completed goat health statement;
• Goats infested with sheep lice cannot be moved in public places unless they are going to slaughter;
• Goats entering NSW from areas with cattle tick are subject to strict requirements which vary depending on the
origin of the stock;
• There are also strict plant import requirements for fodder for the control of weeds and plant diseases.
Goat health standards and management advice are specified in Primefact 469 (North & Seaman 2007) aimed at preventing
disease outbreaks rather than having to contain disease outbreaks. To this end biosecurity guidelines are provided for goat
owners aimed at avoiding and managing disease risks (Taylor & Evers 2010).
Processing and meat export
In their analysis of legislation and regulations relating to processing and meat export of feral camels, Carey et al. (2008a, b)
found that the meat industry is coordinated across jurisdictions. This includes through the Australian Meat and Livestock
Industry Act 1997 (Cth) and Export Licensing Regulations in which ‘livestock’ includes goats (s3). The Australia New Zealand
23
24
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/alliances/invasive-animals-crc Accessed September 2010
http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/model_code_of_practice_for_the_welfare_of_animals#sheep Accessed November 2010
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 30
Food Standards Code25 is also of relevance to regulations for the processing of goat meat. In this code:
• ‘Meat’ means the whole or part of the carcass of any … goat … slaughtered other than in a wild state (s2.2.1(1))
• ‘Game meat’ means the whole or part of the carcass of any … goat … that has been slaughtered in the wild state
(s1.6.2.7 (1))
Minimum standards for game meat processing are contained in ‘Australian standard for hygienic production of Game meat
SCARM Report 57 (3003) published by ARMCANZ. Game meat must be marked as game meat; pet meat must be marked
as pet meat. Standards for the handling of meat and game meat are also set out in the Food regulation 2010 under the
Food Act 2003.
Live export
Regulation of the live export of animals including goats throughout Australia is through the Commonwealth export
legislation and national transport standards.
2.4.4 Assessment and discussion
The fundamental issue in the control of unmanaged goats arises from the tension between the perceptions of goats as a
pest or a resource. As a resource, feral goats can be harvested as appropriate by the land manager to suit the management
needs of the property or financial considerations. As a pest, the objective is to reduce the population densities of the pest
to a level of minimal impact. There are several methods of control accepted as appropriate for the control of feral goats but
the preferred method will reflect their abundance, the topography of the land and the rationale for the control program.
Commercial use objectives will lead to a different approach to conservation objectives.
The commercial use of unmanaged goats is regulated under codes of practice and standard operating procedures that are
nationally accepted. These codes have no statutory power unless they are incorporated into legislation.
The challenge of a feral goat management strategy for Western NSW is to provide for the reduction of environmental
impact by feral goats while reclaiming some of the costs of this objective through commercial use. As is clear from the
Commonwealth threat abatement program there is support for rangeland goats being managed by landholders for
production but this needs to be within the context of total grazing pressure and sustaining biodiversity values (DEWHA
2008a). If commercial use is the only rationale for controlling feral goats there is a danger that the control will not be as
effective as is required for landscape management (West & Saunders 2007). It is notable that assessment of pest control
measures has found that this is substantially more effective within reserves than elsewhere.
To date the evidence suggests that the commercial use of feral goats needs to be viewed as supplementary to the need
for landscape conservation and as a cost benefit to the management program.
2.5 Animal welfare
Animal welfare is a fundamental component of NSW State legislation and for land owners in their animal management
procedures. It is an integral element of all the codes of practice, standard operating procedures and identification systems
developed for livestock use and trade in Australia and NSW.
2.5.1 Legislation
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (PoCTA) is the key piece of legislation covering all animal welfare considerations
within NSW. Compliance with this legislation is referred to in a wide range of other NSW State legislation including the RLP
Act 1998, NPW Act 1975, TSC Act 1995 and GFAC Act 2002.
This Act prohibits cruelty to animals and imposes obligations for the provision of food, drink, shelter and veterinary care
for the animals under their control. The objects of the Act are twofold: to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote the
welfare of animals by providing care, humane treatment and welfare (s3). The primary responsibility for animal welfare
lies with the person who owns or has control of the animal. Offences listed under this Act are wide ranging and include
exercising of confined animals, that animals are not to be abandoned and the alleviation of pain and suffering. With the
classification of free ranging goats as a game animal under the GFAC Act it is important to note that game parks, where
animals are hunted for a fee, are prohibited under s19A of the PoCTA Act.
25
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode/ Accessed November 2010
page 31
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
The PoCTA Act is relevant to feral animals once movement has been restricted, for example in a trap paddock or yard, even
if temporarily. Responsibility for the welfare of free ranging feral animals on their properties, however, is to the extent
that they are responsible for the treatment of any animals not under their control. In NSW this includes the notification
of any diseases apparent on feral stock and that no deliberate harm, aggravated harm or cruelty should occur. There is
no requirement for the provision of shelter, exercise, food or water as there is for stock owner by the landholder. This is
reflected in animal welfare legislation across Australia (Carey et al. 2008a). There are some exemptions for practices under
this legislation. These are considered routine agricultural practice and include the use of dogs to detect, flush or hold
animals for pest animal control. The animals are then to be treated as humanely and quickly as possible after capture. It is
illegal to use dogs for any sporting or recreational purposes (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2006).
The welfare of animals involved in live animal export trade and animals processed at export registered slaughter
establishments is covered by Commonwealth legislation. The Australian Government also has responsibility for introduced
animal management through threat abatement plans, as well as animal welfare of wild animal management and animal
research on Commonwealth lands. Beyond these responsibilities there is no national legislation relating to animal welfare;
this is covered by state legislation.26
2.5.2 Codes of practice and standard operating procedures
While there is no national legislation or nationally binding guidelines regarding animal welfare, the Commonwealth has
promoted the development of codes of practice addressing animal welfare issues. These have been either adopted by the
states or used to develop their own codes (DEWHA 2008a). It is important to recognise, however, that CoPs and SOPs have
no statutory power unless they are incorporated into the PoCTA Act (English & Chapple 2002).
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, Animals in the Wild Sector
In this review of existing animal welfare arrangements (Final report 2007) animals in the wild are defined as ‘air breathing
vertebrates not dependant on humans for their survival, including pest and native species.’27 The priorities for this group of
animals are stated as:
• Welfare of animals in the wild requires the existence of optimum habitat
• Planning needs to be long term to achieve best possible outcomes for animals in the wild
• Community awareness of welfare of animals in the wild and policies to reinforce community responsibility
• Welfare of animals in the wild is core business of Commonwealth primary industry and natural resource
management councils and Council of Australian Governments (COAG).
• Removal of legislative inconsistencies
• Establishment of CoPs and SOPs for the humane control of vertebrate pests, overabundant native species and
native animals affected by reintroduction, relocation and rehabilitation programs
• Ensure ongoing research, development and operations expertise
• Incorporate animal welfare training into all operator training
• Support sustainable landuse planning
• Identify and develop responses to future threats, contingency planning for episodic events
• Promote wild animal welfare.
The report on animals in the wild sector has been incorporated into the overall 2008 Australian Animal Welfare Strategy
which establishes a vision, goals, objectives and activities, benefits, roles and responsibilities and defines the Australian
Government’s approach to animal welfare concerns.
Humaneness of pest animal control methods: model for assessment
This model has been developed in response to the need to improve the humaneness of control programs and to develop
a process that enables the most humane methods to be identified (Sharp & Saunders 2008). A systematic, transparent
and comprehensive process is established by this model. A key component of this report is the definition of the terms
‘humaneness’ and ‘animal welfare’.
26
27
Australian Animals Welfare Strategy (AAWS) 2008 http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/online Accessed October 2010
Ibid
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 32
Assessment of the welfare of free-living wild animals is discussed but concludes that there is very little information beyond
the effects of leg-hold traps and poisons. Literature regarding the humaneness of a number of other methods of feral
animal control is then assessed. In response to the difficulties of assessing the humaneness of pest control methods, the
authors propose ‘best practice’ and guidelines for this purpose including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Codes
of Practice (CoPs). It is proposed that by standardising the application of control methods many negative impact of animal
welfare can be reduced or prevented. SOPs describe control techniques and their application as well as the potential
impacts on the welfare of target and non-target species. CoPs provide information on best practice management, control
strategies, species information and a summary of the humaneness, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and target specificity of each
method. These have been outlined in section 2.4.2. In addition to the above criteria practicality, regulation, acceptability to
the public, occupational health and safety and environmental impact need to be considered (Sharp & Saunders 2008).
Model code of practice for the humane control of feral goats
This code of practice (Sharp & Saunders 2004; Appendix 3.6) has been developed to guide and inform vertebrate pest
control managers of the most humane, target specific, cost effective and efficacious methods for reducing the impact of
feral goats. The ethical approach recognises that the welfare of all animals affected by a control program, either directly
or indirectly, should be recognised and addressed. Humane treatment refers to causing the minimum pain, suffering and
distress possible. These are non-binding Codes of Practice.
Best practice pest management recognises that pest control programs that are not strategically planned or coordinated
are unlikely to have a lasting effect and result in reinfestation by highly mobile species such as goats. The animal welfare
considerations are also best served by the implementation of pest control strategies that are likely to provide long lasting
benefits. In addition to careful planning of the strategy (see section 3) the most humane techniques should be selected to
suit the requirements of the plan. The relative humaneness and acceptability of the control methods described in section
2.4.3 above is outlined in this CoP.
Vertebrate Pest Control Manual
Animal welfare requirements are listed for control of feral goats. These are:
•
Goats should not be driven to the point of collapse;
•
Use of goading devices and dogs for handling and movement of goats should be kept to a minimum;
•
Transport conditions are prescribed, and if goats are to be transported long distances to abattoirs or ports, care
should be taken to avoid stress to the animals;
•
All shooting must be done in a humane manner, preferably by trained shooters with suitable weapons. Goats
must be shot only when in range for a lethal shot and clearly visible;
•
Shot animals should be checked to ensure that they are dead, and every effort should be made to locate and
destroy wounded animals.
(DI&I 2008, p10 feral goat biology and control).
Model code of practice for the welfare of animals: The goat (SCARM 32)
This CoP developed in 1991 is primarily directed towards the welfare of domestic goat stock. It covers nutritional and water
needs to meet physiological requirements, housing and social requirements, protection from predation, pain, injury, disease
and extremes of climate which may be life-threatening, provision of reasonable precautions against the effects of natural
disasters, minimisation of stress. This is relevant for any unmanaged goats that are brought into managed conditions.
2.5.3 Assessment and discussion
Under the PoCTA Act 1979 in NSW it is the responsibility of the owner of the animals to provide humane treatment. In
the case of a highly mobile feral species such as the goat, the occupier of the land is required only to provide care as
required for animals not under their control. State legislation governs these regulations but the Federal Government has
a responsibility for export trade and transport as well as through the threat abatement plan and within Commonwealth
lands.
page 33
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
The model code of practice (Sharp & Saunders 2008) is the most detailed code for the provision of a humane approach to
the control of feral animals and evaluation of the most efficacious methods for these objectives. This code of practice is the
overarching model for planning control plans with the Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures referred to
in section 2.4.2 providing the detail. These considerations also provide the basis for the Vertebrate Pest Control Manual in
NSW (DI&I 2008) and pest control procedure in other states including Queensland.28
It is essential that the priorities provided in the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy underpin the development of a goat
management strategy for Western NSW. The model developed by Sharp and Saunders (2008) should then underpin the
prioritisation of control methods to be used in the control operations. At all times the statutory requirements of the PoCTA
Act 1979 must be adhered to.
Queensland Government Pest Management Strategy (2008) http://www.fpq.net.au/data/portal/00000005/content/18524001210060912011.pdf
Accessed October 2010
28
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 34
Part 3: Policy framework for rangeland land managers
and the Catchment Management Authorities
in Western NSW
3.1 Policy framework: contents
Strategies and programs which encourage changes in land management on privately owned or managed lands to
improve environmental conservation or natural resource management objectives have been developed worldwide. Many
mechanisms have been tried, ranging from education and awareness programs, research and development to government
intervention through regulation, subsidies or other economic instruments (Pannell 2006). For management of feral goats
in Western NSW there is a public benefit that can accrue from improvements in land condition and biodiversity benefits
and a private benefit from the improvement in land condition in addition to the financial benefit from goat harvesting.
The development of a policy framework for the management of feral goats in Western NSW requires the inclusion of
several fundamental principles and elements. These have been highlighted by a number of the high level strategies for
feral animal control, in particular the Australian Pest Animal Strategy (NRMMC 2007). These were included in section 1.2 of
this review but are repeated here for reference:
1. Pest animal management is an integral part of the sustainable management of natural resources for the benefit of
the economy, the environment, human health and amenity.
2. Combating pest animal problems is a shared responsibility that requires all parties to have a clear understanding
of their roles and responsibilities.
3. The development, monitoring and review of integrated pest animal management strategies need to be
underpinned by good science.
4. Setting priorities for, and investment in, pest animal management must be informed by a risk management
approach.
5. Prevention and early intervention are the most cost effective techniques for managing pest animals.
6. Pest animal management requires coordination among all levels of government in partnership with industry, land
and water managers and the community, regardless of land tenure.
7. Effective pest animal management requires capacity-building across government, industry, land and water
managers and the community.
8. Management of established pests should aim to address actual rather than perceived problems, and to reduce
impacts rather than simply pest animal numbers.
9. Management should be strategic in terms of determining where management should occur, timing of management,
being proactive and using appropriate techniques.
10. Where there is a choice of methods, there needs to be a balance between efficacy, humaneness, community
perception, feasibility and emergency needs.
11. The benefits of management should exceed the costs of implementing control.
12. As part of an integrated pest animal management program, commercial harvesting may offset management
costs.
Only item five has little relevance for this analysis – it is a bit too late for feral goats which are defined as ‘established pests’
by several jurisdictions!
While these principles should inform the policy framework, it will only be effective if there is a clear definition of the
problem and the procedures for implementation. The policy should include:
1. Clarification of the trigger for undertaking pest animal management – community or political pressure. This is
unlikely to be effective unless there is strong local or political will for action and resources and a designation for the
responsibility to bring interested parties together.
2. Definition of the problem – who has the problem, where is the problem, how severe is the problem, will the
problem change over time? It is important to focus on the damage caused rather than the pest itself.
page 35
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
3. Definition of the extent of the problem – what is the area being targeted?
a. Initial removal of property boundaries may be a useful approach to avoid apportioning of blame;
b. Divide the area into smaller management units for more effective planning – this may be based on habitat
preferences, known densities (e.g. West & Saunders 2007), movement patterns etc;
c. Estimate the extent of the damage to production and conservation.
4. Detailed determination of actions – this may vary between the defined management units (No 3).
a. Ensure the inclusion of an animal welfare and humaneness assessment at all stages of the process –
planning, implementation and evaluation.
5. Development of pest management plans for each of the management units.
a. Set clear objectives in terms of production and/or conservation outcomes;
b. Include relevant aspects of other planning documents (Catchment Action Plans, recovery plans, threat
abatement plans, property management plans etc).
6. Implementation – involvement of as wide a group of landholders as possible.
7. Outcomes specified that are effective at the district level or more broadly.
8. Monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the program,
a. Operational monitoring – what was done, cost, timing to determine the efficiency of the program;
b. Performance monitoring – were the objectives achieved and if not why not?
(English & Chapple 2002, Reddiex & Forsyth 2004, Sharp & Saunders 2004, 2008 (Part B)).
Using the relative levels of public and private benefits, Pannell (2006) has developed a framework to guide the choice
between policy mechanisms. He specifically defines the benefits:
• Private net benefits: benefits minus costs to the land manager caused by the changes in land management. Private
net benefit would be determined by financial returns from increased productivity by removal of competition from
goats and income from goat harvesting, other indirect flow-on effects through a reduced goat population and the
sustainability values of the land manager.
• Public net benefits: benefits minus all non-private costs. Factors influencing this would include the value or
importance of the environmental asset being targeted, the degree of current degradation, the potential for
improvement and lag times for evidence of improvement (Pannell 2006 p1).
Given the limited availability of funding for implementation of management policies, it is essential the most appropriate
mechanisms be selected. Policy mechanisms used by Pannell (2006) in his framework include the following categories:
positive incentives (financial or regulatory instruments to encourage change), negative incentives (financial or
regulatory instruments, tougher penalties or enforcement to inhibit change), extension (technology transfer, education,
communication, demonstrations, support for community networks), technology development (development of improved
land management options e.g. strategic research & development (R&D), participatory R&D with landholders, provision of
infrastructure to support new management options) and no action (informed inaction) (Pannell 2006 p2). Broadly Pannell
suggests that payments from public funds can be used to encourage change in land management for beneficial impacts
while the ‘polluter pays’ approach is used to deter environmentally damaging landuse change.
The prioritisation of policy mechanisms in terms of relative private versus public net benefits is summarised in the following
ten rules (Pannell 2006 p5):
1. Use positive incentives if public net benefits are positive
2. Positive incentives are unnecessary if landholders will adopt the land-use changes without the incentives
3. Do not use positive incentives if private net costs outweigh public net benefits
4. Do not use extension unless the change being advocated is sufficiently attractive to landholders for it to be adopted
after the extension program is finished.
5. Do not use extension where a change would produce negative net public benefits.
6. If private net costs outweigh public net benefits look to other options such as technological solutions to introduce
environmentally beneficial management, adoptable with or without positive incentives.
7. If private net benefits outweigh public net costs no action necessary as they are likely to occur anyway.
8. If public net costs outweigh private net benefits negative incentives are appropriate.
9. If both public and private net benefits are negative, adverse practices are unlikely so no action is required.
10. At all times the suggested action must be weighed up against a strategy of no action.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 36
At the heart of this framework is the need to target the limited funds available for environmental programs most effectively
and efficiently (see Figure 13 in Pannell 2006).
For effective goat management in Western NSW it will be important to assess the level of private benefit that will accrue
from goat control. This should include well founded data demonstrating the loss of productivity that can be attributed
to grazing and browsing by feral goats. This data and its implications do not appear to be well established in the Western
NSW pastoral community, especially with the confounding issue of kangaroo densities. Under these circumstances Pannell
(2006) recommends a greater role for extension, positive incentives or negative incentives than might otherwise be
considered appropriate.
In their review of the control of pest animals for biodiversity protection Reddiex et al. (2004) concluded that there was
little reliable knowledge of the benefits of feral goat control for native species or ecological communities. In response
Reddiex & Forsyth (2004) recommend that any goat control program be developed experimentally with paired sites that
are randomly assigned to treatment or non-treatment regimes. This approach could also incorporate assessment of the loss
of productivity caused by grazing and browsing of feral goats. It would increase the costs of management actions but may
enhance the involvement of land managers in feral goat control. Reddiex and Forsyth provide a detailed recommended
experimental design for this purpose.
The acceptance and involvement of managers and community is critical if a feral goat management strategy is to be
successful. Despite the lack of data regarding the impact of feral goats on natural resources, Parkes et al. (1996) believed
that most land owners and managers considered unmanaged goats to be a pest and supported their removal. Given that
most feral goats are found on pastoral lands, the perception of pastoralists of costs or benefits of goat management in
terms of sustainable land management is crucial. Total grazing pressure is the key element in maintaining an economically
and ecologically viable livestock industry. Manipulation of this pressure can reduce the risks but this is also affected by
market forces and climatic variation. The perception of goats as pests is strongest during drought but this is not shared by
all pastoralists such as those who gain more income from harvesting goats than sheep (Parkes et al. 1996). The community
and manager attitudes towards feral goat control are likely to be similar to those determined through a survey of camel
management needs and options (Zeng & Edwards 2010). Pastoralists and reserve managers were both generally in
agreement that camels needed to be controlled and favoured a combination of culling and commercial use. There was
a willingness to use any of the available methods and to consider new techniques that may become available (Zeng &
Edwards 2010). An assessment of Aboriginal attitudes to feral camel control programs was varied, with many Aboriginal
people perceiving a need for control but with a sensitivity to culling which was considered wasteful (Vaarzon-Morel, P.
2010).
3.2 Policy framework for the management of feral goats in Western NSW: Land managers and Catchment Management Authorities
3.2.1 Introduction
The development of an unmanaged goat control policy framework for the rangelands of Western NSW will require the
involvement of all stakeholders: land managers, reserve managers, community and government agencies. It is essential
that there is ownership of the policy, especially by land managers, if it is to be effectively implemented. The policy should
be founded on an agreed vision, set of principles, goals and objectives and a set of actions with clearly stated outcomes
established. The framework will also require inclusion of a monitoring and evaluation strategy.
Definition of the problem
The listing of unmanaged or feral goats as a threatening process by both the Commonwealth and NSW Governments
provides a rationale for the public benefit that would accrue from a goat control program. The private benefit can be
assessed from the analysis of TGP being carried out in the concurrent project. Support for funding for further research into
the impact of feral goats on biodiversity and sustainable grazing may be appropriate.
When defining the problem, focus on the damage caused by goats rather than feral goats themselves. In the 1990s the
proportion of TGP attributed to feral goats was estimated at 10% and the consequent loss to the sheep industry was $28
million. The return from goat harvesting to exporters in 1992-3 was approximately $29 million from 30 to 40 thousand goats
(Braysher 1993 quoted in Parkes et al. 1996). This information should be able to be updated through the other projects in
the program. Seasonal market variation also needs to be incorporated in the analysis of financial private benefit.
page 37
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
The issue of commercial grazing of domesticated goats in the rangelands has not been addressed in NSW however it is
an issue of significant concern in both South and Western Australia. In South Australia the Pastoral Board commissioned
a review of the data and findings relating to commercial goat grazing on pastoral lands. The data emanated from a case
study on Lilydale in the north-east pastoral district. Proposals for strictly regulated commercial domestic goat grazing were
under consideration in 2006/7 but this was not fully supported by the SA Arid Lands NRM Committee. The case study on
Lilydale Station to assess the impact of domesticated goat grazing on the vegetation was to continue (Pastoral Board of
SA 2007, 2008). Specific regulation of fencing of commercial domestic goat enterprises, especially if using re-domesticated
feral goats, is strictly regulated in both SA and WA.
Scope
While the area to be included in this policy covers all of Western NSW, it is clear from the surveys conducted by West &
Saunders (2007) that the severity of the problem is unevenly distributed across this region. Both distribution and abundance
are not uniform. The map of feral goat distribution and abundance produced by West & Saunders could be used as the
basis for subdividing the region into smaller management units. Other information such as administrative boundaries or
habitat preferences that might have been elucidated by the literature review should also be considered in determining
boundaries for management units. It will be important to incorporate any knowledge regarding movement patterns that
might exist.
3.2.2 Vision, principles, goals and objectives
Vision
The vision should be determined by the stakeholders in this region. A suggested starting point could be:
‘To reduce the numbers of unmanaged goats to a level at which their impact on production and biodiversity is minimised.’
Alternatively the vision in the APAS or the NSW Invasive Species Plan could be modified.
Principles
These can be adapted from the Australian Pest Management Strategy as reproduced in section 3.1.
Goals and Objectives
The most appropriate goal might be:
‘Reduction of the ecological impact of unmanaged goats in Western NSW.’
The listing of the feral goat as an established pest by jurisdictions across Australia highlights the acceptance that overall
eradication would be an unattainable goal. Eradication may, however, be considered for smaller, critical localities such as
reserves. This has been the approach in South Australia where eradication has been achieved on offshore islands and in
parts of the Flinders Ranges. The use of the word ‘ecological’ might be appropriate since it encompasses the need to build
ecological resilience which underpins both conservation and production goals in this landscape.
Sharp & Saunders (2004) list five options for goat control which should be considered in the formulation of the goals of a
management strategy. These are:
• Local eradication – permanently removing all pests from a defined area in a set time;
• Strategic management – can be implemented where eradication is not achievable but pest damage needs to be
constantly managed;
• Commercial management – this can substantially reduce the goat population size in a particular area but its strategic
value depends on whether it is simply undertaken for commercial purposes or as part of a pest management
strategy;
• Crisis management – this can occur when goat populations are so large they are obviously causing economic
damage. It is usually not part of a strategic management plan and numbers rapidly increase to pre-control levels;
• No management – the listing of feral goats as a threatening process indicates that the absence of goat control will
result in environmental damage and lost production.
It would be valuable to establish some target levels for goat numbers and this may vary between management units and
needs to be seen as realistically attainable.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 38
The opportunity for harvesting and obtaining a commercial return from feral goats will need to be embedded into the goals
and objectives. It is important, however, that commercial harvesting not become the prime reason for goat management.
Commercial harvesting is most valuable for rapidly reducing abundance in an area with income derived as a bonus. On its
own, commercial harvesting will not provide adequate control of goat numbers (West & Saunders 2007).
The approach of the ‘Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems’ (FATE) program (UNSW, Kensington NSW), is also applicable
to the development of goals and objectives for goat control. The focus of this program is to explore the potential role
of the commercial use of native species in supporting rural communities and building ecological resilience (Baumber
et al. 2009). There is also a focus on providing tools for cooperative landscape vegetation planning in sub-catchments
including enhancing connectivity across the landscape, strategic planning to improve resource condition and for ongoing
management of the sub-catchment vegetation resource.29 Although the FATE program is focussed on the commercial use
of native species (e.g. kangaroos) its strategic approach would also be applicable for goat control. The underlying principle
of building ecological resilience is common to both circumstances.
In addition to developing broadly accepted goals and objectives, a clear statement of agreed outcomes is essential in the
preparation of a feral goat management policy and strategy in Western NSW.
3.2.3 Actions
The most efficacious actions to achieve the goals and objectives for a feral goat control strategy can be determined by
using the principles in the framework developed by Pannell (2006). In summary, the final framework, using a benefit cost
ratio of at least 1 and incorporating lags to adoption and learning costs, suggests the following strategies:
• Public net benefits high, private net benefits are not too negative – use positive incentives
• Public net benefits high, private net benefits moderate – use extension
• Private net benefits are positive, public net benefits not particularly high – no mechanism used
• Private net benefits greater than public net costs - no mechanism used
• Private net benefits are less than public net costs – negative incentives
• Public net benefits and private net benefits both negative – no action
• Private net benefits negative, public net benefits not sufficiently high to warrant incentives – support technological
advances.
(Pannel 2006, p14 and Figures 12 and 13)
Using this approach, there are three likely strategies for feral goat control:
1. Positive incentives if the land manager does not perceive the need for management of feral goats (private net
benefits are not perceived as being positive) despite a positive public net benefit. The use of a bounty on goat
ears is one example of an effective incentive program in WA – so successful that it had to be cancelled.
2. Extension – private net benefits perceived as moderate, but public net benefit is high; and
3. No incentives or extension if private net benefits are positive but public net benefits are only moderately high.
Determination of appropriate actions will require both stakeholder and management involvement. This is also demonstrated
by the key elements outlined by Edwards et al. (2006) for the success of the West MacDonnell region horse control program
in the Northern Territory. Feral horses were considered a top management priority in the NT and the success of the program
was demonstrated by a 77% reduction in horse numbers from a follow-up aerial survey. The key elements of this program
were:
• Pre-and post-population surveys in the planning and early implementation phases
• Adequate resources
• Rigorous maintenance control
• Use of qualified personnel
• Incorporation of expert scientific knowledge
• 100% stakeholder support prior to commencement of program
• Flexible methodology. (Edwards et al. 2006, p17).
Summary of FATE ideas: Submission to the NRC http://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/Submission%20-%20LVP%20-%20Future%20
of%20Australias%20Threatened%20Ecosystems.pdf Accessed December 2010
29
page 39
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Annual routine maintenance control keeps the horse numbers in check. These elements should also be considered within
any goat management strategy in Western NSW.
Education and extension
Education and extension has the potential to play an important role in the strategy if the landholders are not entirely
convinced about the need for goat control or the role they might be able to play. Involvement of all relevant government
agencies (including LHPA, DI&I and DECCW) in any extension programs would be essential.
One of the most valuable tools is the provision of annual mapping of goat distribution and abundance. Given that goats
have been included in the annual kangaroo counts conducted by DECCW it may be possible to obtain this information at
minimal cost. Results of aerial survey have been used to advantage in WA in assisting landholders to develop strategies and
as a tool creating some peer pressure between landholders.
Basic research into the impact of feral goats on biodiversity and productivity would be a valuable addition to an education
and extension program as would fact sheets addressing the issues of TGP and ecological damage caused by goats. The
development of a threat abatement plan by DECCW will also be important, despite there being a conservation emphasis
in this plan. The two Invasive Animals CRC projects FeralScan and PestSmart are also potentially valuable tools for an
extension and education program. FeralScan30 is designed to engage the community in the mapping of feral animals
and their impacts across Australia. It will be supported by a national awareness and education campaign. A free web
based mapping and reporting tool for scanning, mapping and reporting information, an online forum for the sharing of
knowledge and information on feral animals and their impact and a species scanning website including FeralGoatScan are
planned. PestSmart31 will provide information and guidance on best practice feral animal management.
Cooperative Programs
The Commonwealth TAP for unmanaged goats states that the successful implementation of the plan will rely on a high
level of cooperation between landholders, community, government (all levels) and pest management agencies. There are
several programs across Australia that provide examples of successful cooperative strategies.
The ‘Bounceback’ project32 conducted by the South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources began
in 1992 and grew from the recognition of a need to develop a cooperative program for goat control which included all
stakeholders in the Flinders Ranges of northern SA. In the 1970s goat numbers escalated in that region in response to
excellent seasonal conditions and a decline in human populations. Key issues of concern integrated into the Bounceback
project were the extinction of critical weight range mammals, continued decline in habitat quality due to threats especially
grazing pressure, the need for an integrated approach to ecological management and conservation of the yellow-footed
rock-wallaby. The project included many partnerships including landholders, sporting shooters, Aboriginal communities,
conservation organisations, scientific representatives, pest control officers and other government agencies. After more than
ten years of operation there are several positive outcomes. Threat abatement plans have been successfully implemented,
feral goat control has effectively reduced impacts but requires a long-term commitment, monitoring has shown that
vertebrate pest species have been controlled to target levels and aerial feral goat control has been very effective in
inaccessible terrain.33
Both Queensland and Victoria have established Good Neighbour Programs to build cooperation between the agencies
managing crown lands and the adjacent landholders. The Queensland policy34 has a broad focus of relationships with
neighbours and local communities with respect to a range of cross-boundary management issues. Neighbours include
primary producers and rural landholders, tourism facilities, industrial and commercial businesses, residential communities
and other agency managed land. Promotion of cooperation and exchange of information, development of guidelines
based on mutual respect and rights and responsibilities as well as a clear outline of the QPWS approach to management
issues underpin the policy. Controlling pest plants and animals is one of about twelve management issues addressed by
the policy (see Appendix 4 for the full policy).
32
33
34
30
31
FeralScan http://www.feral.org.au/feralscan/ Accessed December 2010
PestSmart http://www.feral.org.au/pestsmart-toolkit/ Accessed December 2010
The Bounceback Project http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/programs/bounceback_project.html Accessed October 2010
Ibid
Queensland Good Neighbour Policy http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p01658aa.pdf Accessed September 2010
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 40
The Victorian Good Neighbour Program is more specifically targeted towards pest and weed management with the overall
vision being:
By working together the Government, land owners and the community can protect the environment and help stop pests and
weeds impacting on our land’s sustainability.35
The objectives of this program include the development of positive relations through pest and weed control, effective
control on public and private lands, community priorities and actions as well as community-based programs to be
accounted for and integration of weed and pest management with other NRM objectives.
While it is clear from the NSW DECCW Regional Pest Management Strategies that pest and weed control is a critical element
of their land management, this may not always be effectively communicated with neighbours, especially for a highly mobile
species such as goats. Public consultation has been a key element in the development of wild horse and deer management
plans for various NSW National Parks (NSW NPWS 2005, 2006a, b, 2008). The NPWS Deer Management Plan also has a Deer
Working Group with members from the broader community of interest, including the National Parks Association of NSW,
Nature Conservation Council, NSW Animal Welfare League, Sutherland and Wollongong local government, Moss Vale RLPB,
University of Sydney and the Australian Deer Association (NSW NPWS 2006). The control program for feral goat and deer in
Kangaroo Valley also included a research program to document the impact of deer and goats on rare plants in the area.36
Cooperative programs have been carried out in NSW but without any overriding Government initiative. The coordinated
fox control program of the Goonoo State Conservation Area began in the late 1980s and is based around fox baiting
programs run by three different agencies which have different rationale for targeting foxes: Forests NSW, DECCW and
the LHPA. In July 2007 280,000 hectares of both private and public land were baited with an estimated 88% reduction
in fox numbers in the area treated. Benefits accrued to landholders with a 20% increase in lambing success in addition
to conservation benefits for the threatened Mallee fowl. This project is being seen as a model for other fox management
strategies (Spencer 2008).
Baumber et al. (2009) have proposed through the FATE program, which focuses on sustainable use of native species, that
collaboration with landholders can be advantageous, providing better control over the impact of kangaroos on their land.
This program attempts to address the asset versus liability or pest versus resource issues that are critical to the development
of a feral goat management strategy. As for goat harvesting, kangaroo harvesting is subject to harvest and market variability
and there are associated business risks. There are four critical elements of the FATE program (Ampt & Baumber 2006):
1. Collect more accurate knowledge on the contribution of native, feral and stock contributions to TGP and
communicate this to land holders.
2. Comparison of the value of kangaroo products with sheep production (also applicable for goats).
3. More flexible kangaroo management plans including adaptive management trials to encourage rather than
discourage landholders.
4. Development of enterprise models which would allow landholders to claim a legitimate role in the industry with
an economic benefit.
These could readily be applied to feral goat management.
Culling of feral goats
As outlined in Section 2.4.2, there are a number of methods for culling feral goats. The most appropriate method will vary
in relation to goat abundance, habitat structure, landform and land tenure of the management unit. As demonstrated by
the feral horse culling programs in the NT, a flexible approach to the methods to be used is important. Coacher mustering,
helicopter wing mustering and aerial shooting from helicopters were the primary control methods and were effective
when densities were high. Horses that escaped during wing mustering operations subsequently became unmusterable.
Aerial culling was the most effective for all densities and all terrains but costs increased as density reduced and required
highly trained personnel (Edwards et al. 2006). The decision of which is the most appropriate method is also contingent
upon the objective of the program – eradication or population control. As already stated in section 2, the use of a Judas
goat is most effective in rugged terrain when eradication is the objective.
35
36
Victorian Good Neighbour Program http://www.dsw.vic.gov.au Accessed September 2010
Feral goats and deer in Kangaroo Valley – research, planning and control program 2006-2009 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/
FeralDeerAndGoats.htm Accessed September 2010
page 41
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Regardless of the goals and objective, the terrain or other decision making factor, all culling operations, without exception,
must adhere to the requirements of the PoCTA ACT 1979 and the model for assessment of the humaneness of the control
methods (Sharp & Saunders 2008) (see Section 2.5). The responsibility for ensuring humane treatment lies with the land
owner including for the highly mobile goat when present.
Private hunters have been involved in a number of feral animal control programs in NSW. This has been facilitated
through the NSW Game Council under the GFAC Act 2002. The Game Council has had a role in facilitating private hunter
involvement in a community based feral animal control program on the mid-north coast. It has provided a coordination
and communication role between game council licensed hunters, land owners and managers and agencies (Boyle &
Henderson 2006). They are also involved in the control of deer south of Sydney and feral animal control in State Forests.
Regulated private hunting was also effective in the Bounceback project in SA and the involvement of the Game Council
could be considered for goat control in NSW. Landholder approval and engagement would essential for this to be included
in a management strategy given that private hunters have created a nuisance in Western NSW to date. The Game Council
would be keen to assist in the development of the strategy in order to develop a more positive relationship through the
involvement of licensed hunters rather than irresponsible unlicensed hunters (B. Boyle pers. comm. 2010).
The potential for commercial hunting and trapping as an integral element of any goat management strategy has been
highlighted throughout this review. It can be very effective in rapidly reducing goat numbers, especially if coordinated
between many landholders (West & Saunders 2007). West & Saunders are, however, very clear that it must not be the
primary mechanism for reducing goat numbers if rangeland condition is to be improved.
3.2.4 Evaluation and monitoring
Effective evaluation and monitoring are an essential element in a management strategy. Two essential elements of the
monitoring plan would be aerial survey and ground vegetation condition assessment in association with rigorous onground survey of goat densities and habitat use. Pre- and post culling aerial survey would provide a valuable benchmarking
system against which the strategy can be measured and a valuable tool for communication with landholders.
3.2.5 Relevant legislation
The relevant legislation in NSW has been discussed and compared with legislation in other jurisdictions in Part 2 of this
review.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 42
Part 4: Summary and Recommendations
4.1 Introduction
The key issues influencing the management of feral goats in NSW have been discussed in detail in this report. These
issues include their ownership, status, responsibility for their management, recognition of animal welfare requirements
and issues relating to feral goats as part of the livestock industry. Through this assessment it is clear that the management
of feral goats requires a systems approach in which it is viewed as one element within the whole of landscape approach
to land management. It must be addressed in the context of land degradation and habitat fragmentation. It also requires
engagement of all stakeholders through all stages of planning, implementation and review of policies and strategies.
The Australian Pest Animal Strategy (NRMMC 2007) has outlined some of the challenges confronting effective pest animal
management across Australia (see section 1.2) and these are relevant to feral goat management in Western NSW. The
regulatory challenges involve the establishment of adequate statutory control while recognising the economic and
practical limitations to the implementation of this. For example, the declaration of feral goats as a pest species in NSW
would require landholder compliance that would, in all probability, be beyond their capacity. Coordination and planning of
feral goat management across the landscape needs efficient and effective use of limited resources. Knowledge of the issues
associated with feral goats are not fully understood by all stakeholders, requiring a greater input to education and extension
within the community and, in part, this may be related to the absence of adequate background research to support the
need for management. Underlying all these challenges are the socio-political challenges including animal welfare issues,
adequate resourcing for control programs and recognition that control may be the best option, not eradication.
In this section the conclusions reached through the review of the legislation and other instruments are highlighted with
suggested recommendations. The policy framework is summarised with recommendations for the progression of this to a
more formal policy framework, policy and strategy.
4.2 Legal and strategic framework
4.2.1 Legal status, ownership and obligations for control
In NSW, feral goats have been listed as a key threatening process but have not been declared as a pest. Their impact on the
conservation values of the land has statutory recognition but not their impact on sustainable production and the overall
ecological resilience of the landscape. They are declared as game animals (GFAC Act 2002). While the Commonwealth has
also highlighted the conservation threat posed by unmanaged goats with their declaration of a KTP, no other state has
separated the conservation threats from land degradation. Feral goats have been declared as an established pest in all
other states but the strength of the legislation and its implementation is variable.
Currently the only option in NSW for recognition of the land degradation caused by goats is for a declaration on a regional
basis under the RLP Act (1998). This requires that a pest control order be made and controlled land be declared with the
expectation that the pest be exterminated. This responsibility would lie with the occupier of the land. While it might be
reasonable to lobby for a declaration of feral goats as a pest, the sheer size of their population and the extent of their
distribution are more likely to lead to non-compliance than control. The inclusion of a new section in the RLP Act (1998)
which provides for a new category of pest, an established pest, for which control and reversal of land degradation is the
objective rather than eradication, would address the absence of effective statutory support for goat control. The South
Australian legislation might be a suitable model. Although NSW has the weakest legislation it has done the most to control
goats, especially in reserves (Reddiex et al. 2004). National Park management does require the control of feral species under
the NPW Act (1975).
There are also no laws or regulations aimed at limiting the establishment of new populations of feral goats in NSW. This was
highlighted as a deficiency by Parkes et al. in 1996 but there has been no attempt to address this shortcoming. Parkes et al.
(1996) also recommended that states and territories that have no legal or policy frameworks to ensure concerted action to
manage the impact of feral goats should develop them. This policy review is timely after a 15 year gap.
page 43
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
The ownership of a widely ranging feral species like the goat is another contentious issue. This issue is important when
determining who has the responsibility for the care, welfare, control and right to harvest and use the animals. Currently, under
NSW law they are unprotected fauna, subject to common law37 and are therefore not the property of the Crown nor the
landholder. Under the Commonwealth TAP the landholder is considered the owner for harvesting or control purposes (EPBC
Act 1999). If they become a declared pest species their control becomes the responsibility of the landowner where they occur.
As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the provision of a separate Act which clarifies the issues of ownership should be considered. The
NSW Deer Act 2006 provides an example of a possible approach.
In their recommendation for legislative change in relation to feral camel management, Carey et al. (2008) recommend that
ownership be explicitly determined, suggesting that it be vested in the Crown. This was considered desirable in order to clarify
issues relating to the commercial use of camels. Conversely, such a declaration would also result in the full responsibility for
pest control being vested in the Crown and as such is unlikely to be acceptable. The interrelated issues of ownership and legal
obligations for control are not specifically addressed in any legislative instrument in NSW and if land degradation through
goat grazing is to be addressed through pest control and commercial harvesting it is recommended that this be clarified.
4.2.2 Feral goat control
A range of policies, strategies and programs for feral animal management have been developed for all Australian jurisdictions.
These vary from being broad invasive species frameworks such as the NSW Invasive Species Plan to specific species policies
and programs. The lack of a threat abatement plan to support the listing of the threatening process in NSW is a significant
gap in feral goat control in NSW. A common theme throughout the instruments and surrounding literature is the importance
of coordinated and integrated strategies across all land tenures and the inclusion of community involvement. Broadscale
land management issues need to be addressed in the context of focussing on the damage goats cause rather than the goats
themselves.
In their review, Parkes et al. (1996) concluded that legislation and policy alone were not effective. They highlighted the fact
that while the WA and Queensland legislation were very similar, the practice in each state was quite different. Queensland
was reliant on individual action and commercial harvesting rather than developing a coordinated plan as in WA. In NSW
there is a need for legislation and policies as well as a coordinated plan for feral goat control and management.
Despite the absence of any legal declaration in NSW feral goats are an ‘established pest’ with strategic management
the most appropriate objective. The complicating factor in this is the dual status of goats as both a pest and a resource.
Commercial harvesting of feral goats can reduce goat density but its value as a control mechanism is strongly influenced by
market variation, the desire to retain populations for ongoing harvesting and the lack of any obligation to reduce numbers
and reverse land degradation. Commercial harvesting needs to be an element embedded into a strategy which has goat
control as its primary objective and commercial gain as an added bonus. As indicated in the Commonwealth TAP, rangeland
goats can be managed for production but only within the context of sustainable grazing management and biodiversity
conservation (DEWHA 2008a).
Several methods of control of feral goats are accepted as appropriate and the most appropriate method will be determined
by local requirements and conditions. Standard operating procedures and codes of practice have been developed for
each of these methods (see Appendix 3) and standardised in the vertebrate pest control manual (DI&I NSW 2008). Similarly
there is clear legislation, regulation and policy relating to the harvesting of feral goats. This includes transport, sale, disease
management and processing of stock.
The commercial use of feral goats needs to be viewed as secondary to the maintenance of ecological resilience of the land
for the benefit of biodiversity conservation and sustainable production. Commercial harvesting represents a cost benefit to
the strategic management program for feral goat control.
4.2.3 Animal welfare
Animal welfare must be an integral component of any feral goat control strategy. This is clearly established by the PoCTA
Act (1979) and the model code of practice for the humane control of feral animals (Sharp & Saunders 2008). Under the Act
it is the responsibility of the owner of the animals to provide humane treatment. For highly mobile species the occupier
of the land is required to provide care only as required for animals not under their control. Once the goats are trapped for
commercial purposes they become the property of that person who is fully responsible for the humane treatment of the
animals. Animal welfare is also addressed through Commonwealth legislation governing export trade and transport.
37
Common law refers to law developed by judicial decisions through the courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes (statutory law) or executive decisions (regulatory law). It is also known as case law or precedent.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 44
The priorities provided in the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and the model code of practice both need to be an
integral component of any feral goat management strategy. The basic requirements for the welfare of goats are listed as:
i. A level of nutrition adequate to sustain good health and vigour
ii. Access to sufficient water of suitable quality to meet physiological needs
iii. Social contact with other goats, with sufficient space to stand, to lie down and stretch their limbs
iv. Protection from predation
v. Protection from pain, injury and disease
vi. Protection from extremes of climate which may be life-threatening
vii. Provision of reasonable precautions against the effects of natural disasters e.g. firebreaks and fodder storage
viii. Handling facilities which under normal usage do not cause injury and which minimise stress to the goat
(Sharp & Saunders 2008).
4.3 Policy framework
A key recommendation of this report is that the policy framework for the management of feral goats in Western NSW only
be completed after there has been adequate consultation with stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement is essential for the
development of the vision, goals, objectives, management units and cooperative programs. This will confer a greater sense
of ownership of the underlying approach to the control of feral goats to all parties likely to be involved. The results of the
three concurrent projects should also provide input into the policy framework.
The proposed policy framework should contain:
1. The need for a policy framework - definition of the problem, including clarification of the trigger for the development
of a feral goat management policy
2. Background information
3. Scope: definition of the extent of the problem – division of this into appropriate management units
4. Vision, principles and goals
5. Statement of objectives
6. Determination of appropriate actions:
i. Landholders - culling methods, commercial use, stock requirements, vegetation condition monitoring,
participation in FeralScan
ii. CMAs – stakeholder engagement strategies, development of cooperative programs, education and
extension, incentives if appropriate, research and development, rationale for choice of policy mechanisms
7. Inclusion of animal welfare requirements, humane treatment of goats at all times
8. Evaluation, monitoring and reporting against the stated objectives
i. Performance monitoring: were the objectives of the policy achieved, if not why not, how effective was the
program?
ii. Operational monitoring: timing and cost of operations, efficiency of the program
9. Relevant legislation, policies, codes of practice, standard operating procedures
10. Definitions
The information required for each of these elements of the policy framework is outlined and discussed in Section 3. Options
are suggested.
The recommendation is also that there be only one policy framework which addresses issues relating to both the landholders
and the Western CMA. This is preferred given that the goal of controlling feral goat populations in Western NSW needs to
be a cooperative relationship with the responsibilities of the land manager and the agencies specified.
page 45
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
References
Ampt, P & Baumber, A (2006) ‘Building connections between kangaroos, commerce and conservation in the rangelands’,
Australian Zoologist vol 33, pp 398-409.
Animal Plant and Control Commission, Dept. Primary Industries, South Australia (APCC DPI SA) (1998) Policy relating to feral
goats. GPO Box 1671 Adelaide SA 5001
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (2008) AAWS http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/online
Australian Pest Animal Management Program (APAMP) DAFF http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/land/feral-animals/apamp
Boyle, B & Henderson, C (2006) ‘The Game Council NSW and its emerging role in game and feral animal management
in NSW’ pp 76-78 in Pest or Guest: the zoology of overabundance. Eds: D. Lunney, P. Eby, P. Hutchings and S. Bergin. Royal
Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman
Baumber, A., Cooney, R., Ampt, P. & Gepp, K. (2009) Kangaroos in the rangelands: opportunities for landholder collaboration.
The Rangeland Journal 31, 161-167
Carey, R., O’Donnell, M., Ainsworth, G., Garnet, S., Haritos, H. & Williams, G. (2008a) Review of legislation and regulations
relating to feral camel management. Desert Knowledge CRC Report 50.
http://www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/resource/DKCRC-Report-50-Review-of-legislation.pdf
Carey, R., O’Donnell, M., Ainsworth, G., Garnet, S., Haritos, H., Williams, G., Edwards, G. P. McGregor M. J. & Zeng B. (2008b)
Review of legislation and regulations relating to feral camel management (summary). Ch6 pp125-32 In Cross-jurisdictional
management of feral camels to protect NRM and cultural values Eds G. P. Edwards, M. J. McGregor, B. Zeng, P. Vaarzon-Morel, &
K. Saalfeld. Desert Knowledge CRC Report 47
http://www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/resource/DKCRC-Report-47-Ch06_Carey-et-al_Review-of-legislation-andregulations-relating-to-feral-camel-management-summary.pdf
De Milliano, JW, Woolnough, A, Reeves, A & Shepherd, D, 2010, Ecologically significant invasive species: A monitoring framework
for natural resource management groups in Western Australia. Prepared for the Natural Heritage Trust 2 program, Department
of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, South Perth
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR SA) (1998) Policy relating to feral goats
http://environment.sa.gov.au/dwlbc/assets/files/bio_pest_policy_goat.pdf
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) (2004) Competition and habitat degradation by feral
goats - key threatening process
http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/threat_profile.aspx?id=20017
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (NPWS) (DECCW (2008a). Far West Region Pest Management
Strategy 2008-2011. DECC Sydney NSW.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/09104FarWestRegionPestMgmtStrategy.pdf
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (NPWS) (DECCW) (2008b). Northern Plains Region Pest
Management Strategy 2008-2011. DECC Sydney NSW.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/09105NorthernPlainsRegionPestMgmtStrategy.pdf
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (NPWS) (DECCW) (2008c). Upper Darling Region Pest
Management Strategy 2008-2011. DECC Sydney NSW.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/09106UpperDarlingRegionPestMgmtStrategy.pdf
Department of Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008a) Background document for the threat abatement
plan for competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-goat-background.pdf
Accessed August 2010
Department of Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008b) Threat abatement plan for competition and land
degradation by unmanaged goats
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-goat-report.pdf
Accessed August 2010
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 46
Department of Industry and Investment (DI&I) NSW (2008) Vertebrate Pest Control Manual Orange Agricultural Institute,
Orange, NSW Government Publishing
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/resources/bookshop/vertebrate-pest-control-manual October 2010
Department of Primary Industry, Victoria (2010) Invasive plants and animals policy framework.
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au Accessed October 2010
Edwards, G., Saalfeld, K. & Bowland, T. (2006) Feral horses in the Northern Territory. Pp16-19 in M. J. Dawson, C. Lane and G.
Saunders (Eds) (2006). Proceedings of the National Feral Horse Management Workshop – Canberra, August 2006. Published
by the Invasive Animals CRC.
http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/FeralHorse.pdf
English A. W. (2000) Report on the cull of feral horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park in October 2000. Executive Summary.
A report to the Minister for the Environment
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/englishReport.pdf
English A. W. (2001) A management plan for feral horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/englishReport2nd.pdf
English, A. W. (2002) A report on the management of feral horses in National Parks in NSW.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/englishReportFinal.pdf
English, A. W. and Chapple, R. S. (2002) A report on the management of feral animals by New South Wales National Parks
and Wildlife Service.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/EnglishReportOnNPWSManagementOfPestAnimals.htm
Accessed August 2010
Garnett, S. T., Williams, G., Ainsworth, G. B. & O’Donnell, M. (2010) Who owns feral camels? Implications for managers of lands
and resources in central Australia. The Rangeland Journal 32: 87-93
Gray, G. & Massam, M. (2001) Keeping feral goats in Agricultural areas. Farmnote 11/2001 (Reviewed 2006) Agriculture
Western Australia
Hart, Q. (2005) A review of the Commonwealth Government’s Threat Abatement Plans for feral goats, feral rabbits, feral cats
and the European red Fox. Final report for the Australian Government Department of the Environment & Heritage Bureau
of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Henzell, R. (2008) Goat Capra hircus In: Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. eds The Mammals of Australia Third Edition. pp 768-9
James, J. (2007) Feral Goat Farmnote 83/2000 (Reviewed 2007) Agriculture Western Australia. Accessed October 2010
http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/vp/fer/f08300.pdf
Johnson, C. (2006) Australia’s Mammal Extinctions. A 50,000 year history. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
Letnic, M. (2007) The impacts of pastoralism on the fauna of arid Australia. pp65-75 in the Animals of Arid Australia: out on
their own? Eds C. Dickman, D. Lunney & S. Bergin. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia.
Leys, A. (2004) Threat abatement plans: strategic pest management for biodiversity conservation. Pp102-106 in Threatened
species legislation: is it just an Act? Eds P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman. Royal Zoological Society of NSW. Mosman
NSW.
Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S & De Poorter M (2000). 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the Global
Invasive Species Database, Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland.
McGregor, M. & Edwards, G. (2010) Guest Editorial: Managing the impacts of feral camels. The Rangeland Journal 32: i-iii
McLeod R. (2004) Counting the cost: Impact of invasive animals in Australia 2004. CRC for Pest Animal Control Canberra.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) (2007) Australian Pest Animal Management Strategy – A national
strategy for the management of vertebrate pest animals in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pest-animal-strategy.html Accessed August 2010
page 47
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Newsome, A. E., Catling, P. C., Cooke, B. D., & Smythe, R. (2001) Two ecological universes separated by the dingo barrier fence
in semi-arid Australia; interactions between landscapes, herbivory and carnivory, with and without dingoes. Rangeland
Journal 23, 71-98.
North, R. & Seaman, J. (2007) Goat health – keeping the herd disease free PRIMEFACT 469 DPI NSW
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/142107/goat-health-keeping-the-herd-disease-free.pdf
NSW Department of Industry & Investment (NSW DI&I) (2008) New South Wales Invasive Species Plan 2008-2015.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ accessed July 2010
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2005) Deer Management Plan 2005-2008 for Royal National Park and
NPWS other parks and reserves in the Sydney South Region
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/RoyalNPDeerManagementPlan2005Approved.pdf Accessed
October 2010
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2006a) Guy Fawkes River National Park: Horse Management Plan.
Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Sydney South.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/GfrnpHorseMgmtplan.htm Accessed October 2010
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2006b) Feral Horse Management Plan for Oxley Wild Rivers National Park,
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/OxleyWildRiversNpHorseMgmtplan.htm Accessed October 2010
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2008) Kosciusko National Park: Horse Management Plan. Department of
Environment and Climate Change NSW, Sydney South.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/KnpHorseMgmtplan.htm Accessed October 2010 and
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/kosciuszkoWildHorseManagementPlan.pdf
NSW Scientific Committee (2004) Competition and habitat degradation by feral goats - key threatening process: final
determination
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/FeralGoatsKtp.htm Accessed August 2010
Pannell, D.J. (2006). Public benefits, private benefits, and the choice of policy tool for land-use change, SIF3 Working Paper
0601, CRC for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity, Perth. http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/dp0601.htm
Parkes, J. & Forsyth, D. (2004) Predicting the size of commercial harvest of feral goats in Australia. Australian Wildlife management
Society 17th Scientific Meeting and AGM. Kingscote, Kangaroo Island. 29th Nov-2nd Dec 2004 AWMS Canberra.
Parkes, J., Henzell, R. & Pickles, G. (1996) Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Goats Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/land/feral-animals/aparp/managing_vertebrate_pests_feral_goats
Accessed August 2010
Pastoral Board of South Australia (2007) Annual report 2006-7
www.environment.sa.gov.au/dwlbc/assets/files/Pastoral_AR_2006_07.pdf Accessed September 2010.
Pastoral Board of South Australia (2008) Annual report 2007-8
www.environment.sa.gov.au/dwlbc/assets/files/Pastoral_AR_2007_08.pdf Accessed September 2010
Queensland Environment Protection Agency Good Neighbour Policy
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p01658aa.pdf Accessed September 2010
Queensland Government Pest Management Strategy (2008)
http://www.fpq.net.au/data/portal/00000005/content/18524001210060912011.pdf Accessed October 2010
Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Management of pests of EPA managed land Qld Pest
Management Plan
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p01364aa.pdf Accessed September 2010
Queensland State of the Environment Report (Qld SoE) (1999)
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p00716bw.pdf accessed October
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 48
Reddiex, B and Forsyth, D. M. (2004) Review of existing Red Fox, feral cat, feral rabbit, feral pig and feral goat control in
Australia. II Information gaps. Final report for the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/information-gaps/pubs/information-gaps-final.pdf
Accessed October 2010
Reddiex, B., Forsyth, D. M., McDonald-Madden, E., Einoder, L. D. Griffioen, P. A., Chick, R. R. and Robley, A. J. (2006) Control of
pest mammals for biodiversity protection in Australia. I Patterns of control and monitoring. Wildlife Research 3, 691-709
Saunders, G. & Molloy, K (2008) Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Information Brochure.
http://205.186.136.139/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/CRC_info_8pg.pdf Accessed August 2010
Sharp, T. & Saunders, G. (2004) Model code of practice for the humane control of feral goats, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit,
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/humane-control/cop-feral-goats.pdf
Sharp, T and Saunders, G (2008). A model for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods. Australian
Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT.
South Australian Government (2005) Policy Relating to Feral Goats Adopted by the Minister for Environment and
Conservation NRM Biosecurity Unit DEH
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/137479/Goat_policy_August_2010.pdf
Spencer, H. (2008) Foxes fall foul in forests Bush Telegraph Magazine Spring 2008
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/news/bush-telegraph-magazine/spring-2008/foxes Accessed October 2010
Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Health Committee (2003) Model code of practice for the welfare of animals: the
goat. SCARM Report No 32. SCA Technical report series 32. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) (2010) The feral camel (Camelus dromedarius)
– invasive species fact sheet
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/camel-factsheet.html Accessed September 2010
Taylor, J. & Evers, M. (2010) Moving goats into and within NSW PRIMEFACT 949 second edn
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/301660/moving-goats-into-and-within-nsw.pdf
Accessed September 2010
Vaazon-Morel, P. (2010) Changes in Aboriginal perceptions of feral camels and their impacts on management. The Rangeland
Journal 32, 73-85.
West, P. & Saunders, G. (2003) Pest Animal Survey 2002. An analysis of pest animal distribution and abundance across NSW
and the ACT. Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Agriculture.
West, P & Saunders, G. (2007) Pest Animal Survey 2004-2006. A review of the distribution, impact and control of invasive
animals throughout NSW and the ACT. Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries
Wollongong City Council (2010) Vertebrate Pest Animal Management Policy
http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/services/sustainability/Documents/Vertebrate%20Pest%20Animal%20
Management.pdf Accessed November 2010
Zeng, B. & Edwards, G. P. (2010) Perceptions of pastoralists and conservation reserve managers on managing feral camels
and their impacts. The Rangeland Journal 32: 63-72
page 49
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Appendix 1: Legislation extracts
NSW Rural Lands Protection Act 1998
143 Minister may make pest control orders
(1) The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette:
(a) describe any land to which the order applies (the “controlled land”), and
(b) declare any non-human mammal or any bird, insect, amphibian, fish, reptile, arthropod, insect, mollusc, crustacean or other member of the animal kingdom to be a “pest” on the controlled land, and
(c) impose or confer any one or more of the obligations or powers described in subsection (2) in relation to that pest on the controlled land.
(2) A pest control order may:
(a) impose a “general destruction obligation” requiring the occupier of the controlled land to eradicate the pest by any lawful method or by a method specified in the order, or
(b) impose a “limited destruction obligation” requiring the occupier of the controlled land to eradicate the pest by any lawful method or by a method specified in the order during specified stages of its development or life cycle, or
(c) impose a “notification obligation” requiring the occupier of land to give the authority for the district in which the controlled land is situated notice of the presence of the pest on the land as soon as practicable after becoming aware of its presence, or
(d) empower an authority to serve an order in accordance with this Part on any occupier or owner (other than a public authority) of the controlled land in its district requiring the occupier or owner to eradicate the pest by use of a method specified by the authority in the order (an “individual eradication order”), or
(e) empower an authority to publish an order in accordance with this Part requiring all occupiers of land within its district (or a specified part of its district) to eradicate the pest by use of any method specified by the authority in the order (a “general eradication order”), or
(f ) confer power on any authorised officer or class of authorised officers to take measures to carry out work on the controlled land to eradicate the pest, or
(g) confer on an authority the power to give approval (whether or not subject to any condition) for any person or class of persons to keep the pest in captivity on the controlled land, or
(h) confer on an authority a power to approve or order the use (whether or not subject to any condition) of a method of eradication of a pest other than a method (if any) that is specified in the pest control order, or
(i) prohibit the administration of any substance specified in the pest control order to the pest, or
(j) require an authority to supply materials that have been provided to it for the eradication of the pest on controlled land within its district free of charge to the occupier or owner of the land.
(3) An order may specify a method of eradication to be used in relation to a pest on controlled land that involves application of a substance or thing from the air.
(4) An order must not specify any method of eradication in relation to a pest that would constitute an act of cruelty committed upon an animal within the meaning of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979.
(5) The Minister may not make an order declaring any member of the animal kingdom that is protected fauna or a threatened species to be a pest.
(6) The land to which an order applies may be private land or public land, or both.
(7) An order may be made so as:
(a) to apply generally or be limited in its application by reference to specified exceptions or factors, or
(b) to apply differently according to different factors of a specified kind.
(8) In this section: “public authority” means a public authority other than a local authority.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 50
Queensland Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002
Section 4: How purpose is achieved
The purpose is achieved mainly by the following:
(a) establishing principles of pest management for land and stock route network management;
(b) providing for pest management planning and stock route network management planning;
(c) declaring animals and plants to be declared pests;
(d) restricting the introduction, keeping or sale of declared pests;
(e) preventing the spread of declared pests in the State, including, for example, preventing their spread by human activity;
(f ) establishing responsibilities for pest and stock route network management;
(g) building and maintaining fences to prevent declared pest animals moving from a part of the State to another part;
(h) establishing the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Council to give advice and make recommendations to the Minister about managing pests and the stock route network;
(i) providing for the establishment of pest operational boards;
(j) constructing and maintaining travelling stock facilities on the stock route network;
(k) monitoring, surveying and controlling pests and the movement of travelling stock.
Section 9: Principles
The principles of pest management for land are as follows
• Integration
Pest management is an integral part of managing natural resources and agricultural systems.
• Public awareness
Public awareness and knowledge of pests must be raised to increase the capacity and willingness of individuals
to manage pests.
• Commitment
Effective pest management requires a long-term commitment to pest management by the community, industry
groups and government entities.
• Consultation and partnership
Consultation and partnership arrangements between local communities, industry groups, State government
agencies and local governments must be established to achieve a collaborative approach to pest
management.
• Planning
Pest management planning must be consistent at local, regional, State and national levels to ensure resources
target priorities for pest management identified at each level.
• Prevention
Preventative pest management is achieved by-(a) preventing the spread of pests, and viable parts of pests, especially by human activity; and
(b) early detection and intervention to control pests.
• Best practice
Pest management must be based on ecologically and socially responsible pest management practices that
protect the environment and the productive capacity of natural resources.
• Improvement
Research about pests, and regular monitoring and evaluation of pest control activities, is necessary to improve pest
management practices.
page 51
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Appendix 2
DECCW pest management objectives, principles and priorities
Far West Region Pest Management Strategy 2008-2011 (pp12-16)
7 Pest Management Objectives
The overriding objective of NPWS’s pest management programs is to minimise adverse impacts of pests on biodiversity
and other park values whilst complying with legislative responsibilities.
Programs also aim to:
• manage pest populations to minimise their impact on neighbours,
• increase community understanding of the adverse impacts of pests on biodiversity and Aboriginal and historic
cultural heritage, and
• support cooperative approaches and participation in pest management programs with the community and
other agencies.
8 Pest Management Principles
Wherever possible, NPWS adopts an integrated approach to pest management, where more than one control technique
is used, across the landscape. Integrated pest management is likely to be more effective because it avoids selecting for
herbicide resistant weed biotypes or bait-shy animals. Targeting more than one pest species is important as the control of
one species may benefit another eg. control of foxes may benefit rabbits, control of bitou bush often leads to an increase
in other weeds. Also, control is usually undertaken at particular times of the year when pests are most vulnerable (eg.
translocation of herbicides to growing points is usually greater when weeds are flowering).
So that pest management undertaken by the NPWS is carried out effectively and efficiently, the following principles are
generally applied.
• Pest control is targeted to species/locations where benefits will be greatest.
• Development of control priorities are set by clearly defining the problem to be addressed ie. specific impacts are
identified so that the purpose of control is clear.
• Where relevant, pest control is collaborative and across tenure, that is, undertaken on a landscape approach.
• Early detection of new incursions and rapid response is considered a high priority as this is the most costeffective form of pest control.
• Priority is given to mitigating the impacts on biodiversity of a pest that has cultural significance, whilst minimising
impacts on cultural values.
• The aim of most pest control programs is to minimise the adverse impacts of pests, as many exotic pests are
already widespread (eg. foxes, blackberries) and for these species eradication is not possible.
• The focus of control programs is directed towards the values to be protected, because killing pests, by itself,
does not necessarily minimise their impacts due to the fact that ecological processes are complex and can be
affected by a range of factors.
• Risk assessments are undertaken prior to pest control, where required.
• Pest management strives to strike a balance between cost efficiency, target specificity and animal welfare.
• Where appropriate, pest control employs a combination of control methods and strategies (integrated pest
management).
• Pest control programs take a holistic approach, given that the control of one pest may benefit other pests, in
that they attempt to control all significant pest threats at a site.
• Pesticide use complies with relevant legislation and is employed in a manner that minimises impacts on the
environment.
• Pest management programs are often integrated with other land management activities such as fire management
and recreation management.
• Monitoring is being implemented, at varying levels, to demonstrate and improve the ongoing effectiveness of
control programs.
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 52
9 Pest Program Priorities
NPWS prioritises its pest control programs to focus on those areas where the impacts of pests are likely to be greatest.
Resources can then be directed to ensure that the resultant control programs are effective in reducing these impacts.
The availability of suitable control techniques and resources (both financial and physical), as well as the practicality and
cost effectiveness of control, also influence which programs can be implemented. Where new pest incursions occur, early
detection and eradication is the most cost effective way to minimise the impacts. The NPWS will work with other agencies
to prevent the introduction of new pests and to respond rapidly when new incursions occur.
The following key factors are considered when determining priorities for pest management within the Region.
Critical Priority
1. Programs targeting pests which are, or are likely to be, significantly impacting on biodiversity, as largely identified in
the NSW Threatened Species Priorities Action Statement;
2. Programs that target pests which impact significantly on human health or are part of a declared national emergency;
3. Programs targeting pests that impact significantly on agricultural production eg. wild dog control where there is
potential for significant stock losses as identified in Wild Dog Management Plans; programs to control State Prohibited
or Regionally Prohibited Noxious Weeds (Control Class 1 and 2 weeds);
4. Programs addressing new occurrences of highly invasive pest species with potential for significant impacts on park
values (subject to risk/feasibility assessment);
High Priority
5. Programs that target pests (other than those covered in priorities above) that impact significantly on World Heritage
or international heritage values;
6. Programs targeting pests that impact significantly on important cultural heritage values;
Medium Priority
7. Programs that target pests (other than those covered in priorities above) that impact significantly on Wilderness, Wild
Rivers, national heritage values or other important listed values;
8. Programs that target pests that impact significantly on recreation, landscape or aesthetic values;
9. Community or cooperative programs targeting pests that impact significantly on park values or agricultural production
and that have ongoing, proven effectiveness and participation;
10. Community or cooperative programs that are implemented as part of an endorsed state or regional plan (and not
covered above in higher priorities;
Lower Priority
11. Community programs targeting pests that have localised impacts on natural ecosystems or agricultural lands and that
promote community education and involvement with parks;
12. Previous programs targeting pests that have localised impacts on native species and ecosystems, and that can be
efficiently implemented to maintain program benefits.
In some circumstances, new programs may be introduced, or priority programs extended to target pests where a control
“window of opportunity” is identified e.g. where burnt areas become more accessible for ground control of weeds; where
drought makes control of feral pigs and feral goats more efficient because they congregate in areas where water is available;
or when a new biocontrol agent becomes available.
Future priorities for pest control will need to reflect changes in the distribution, abundance or impacts of pests that may
occur in response to environmental changes including climate change. NPWS is supporting research to understand the
interaction between climate change, pests and biodiversity.
10 Pest Program Recording and Monitoring
Measuring the response of biodiversity (or other values) to pest control is necessary in order to:
• demonstrate the degree of impacts and hence justify priorities for management, and
• measure the effectiveness of ongoing control and direct resources to those programs with the greatest effect.
page 53
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
Measuring the response of biodiversity can be difficult because populations of native species can vary in space and time
for many reasons so that differentiating the effects of pest control from other sources of variation is often complex. Where
populations cannot be counted directly, measurement is dependent on using indices of abundance. Rigorous attempts to
measure population responses need to consider experimental design (eg. treatment and non-treatment sites, replication,
time scale for measurable responses to occur), sampling design (because the entire population can rarely be measured)
and standardisation of population measures to allow data to be collated across NPWS (across sites, times and land tenure
where appropriate). As a result, measuring the response to pest control is expensive and can be afforded for only a small
sub-set of control programs.
Where native populations are rare, cryptic or dispersed, or where a suite of species is predicted to be affected, indicator
species, or other indices of relative abundance, can be used to provide an indirect measure of effectiveness. For example,
while fox control may benefit a broad range of ground dwelling mammals, monitoring may focus on a particular “indicator”
species which may be easy to capture.
The monitoring of response of pest species distribution and abundance provides an interim measure of effectiveness
essential:
• to aid comparison between control effort and biodiversity response;
• to provide useful data where biodiversity, other park values or agricultural responses are too difficult to measure or
there is insufficient resources to make proper measurement;
• to provide an interim measure where native species may take some time to respond to pest control.
Where pest incursions have occurred recently, or where their distribution is otherwise limited, the objective of control is
usually to eradicate the incursion completely or to contain its spread. In these situations, monitoring is required to confirm
eradication or containment and should focus on the pest species rather than the response of native species to control.
Such an approach may require methods that are capable of detecting populations at very low densities and prolonged
monitoring will be required to ensure that containment or eradication has been achieved.
Where appropriate, monitoring programs should also include measures to verify the results of research being undertaken
to gain a better understanding of the interaction between pests and climate change. Systems and databases are being
developed for the consistent and systematic collection, collation, storage and analysis of data as part of the Monitoring and
Evaluation component of the Park Management Program.
11 Regional coordination and support of pest control programs
Pest control programs are coordinated by the local NPWS Area and Region in order to ensure that resources are utilised
to achieve the best possible outcomes. Area and Regional assistance is also required to efficiently work with neighbours,
community groups and other agencies. Education of staff and the broader community are essential requirements in
integrated pest management and are also best achieved by centralised coordination. Partnerships with working groups
and other agencies such as Prickly Bush Action Group, Rangecare groups and local Councils will be strengthened.
Additional Information
Standard Operating Procedures and Codes of Practice for the control and hmane handling of feral goats are available at
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/vertebrate-pests/codes/humane-pest-animal-control
Accessed September 2010
The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Good Neighbour policy is available at Queensland EPA: http://www.derm.qld.
gov.au/register/p01658aa.pdf Accessed September 2010
These appendices may be accessed via the internet addresses above or via the electronic copy of this document, located
at http://www.western.nsw.gov.au
Review of feral goat regulatory and strategic framework
page 54
Back Cover: Feral goats in trapyards in the Broken Hill area.