Download Invasive Species

Invasive Species
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
2010
Background
Since European settlement weeds and pest animals have become widespread across both public and private land. While some of these
invasive species have had little impact, a number threaten the viability of native species by degrading and replacing native vegetation and
communities, preventing the regeneration of habitat, disturbing soil and promoting erosion and, in the case of introduced predators, preying
on vulnerable native animals. The impacts of some species have the potential to substantially increase in fire affected areas and with
predicted climate change.
This discussion paper considers the current arrangements and legislative provisions for managing invasive species and presents future
directions and raises a number of questions regarding the management of invasive species.
Current Policy and Management
Park managers are required under the National Parks Act 1975 (Vic.) to exterminate or control exotic fauna and eradicate or control exotic
flora in parks. Land managers are required under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Vic.) to control certain species declared to
be noxious weeds or pest animals in Victoria. These include many weeds and foxes, rabbits, feral pigs, feral goats and wild dogs.
The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has recently released a draft of the Invasive Plant and Animal Policy Framework (IPAPF) for
public comment, which will replace the Victorian Pest Management Framework in providing the state's strategic directions. The IPAPF sits
within the context of the Biosecurity Strategy for Victoria.
Like the Victorian Pest Management Framework which it replaces, the new framework takes a risk management approach to providing
guidance for future policy, planning and community activity specific to invasive plants and animals in Victoria. There are four main goals to
be achieved with the supporting elements of partnerships, engagement, monitoring and evaluation and research. These are:
• prevention and preparedness
• eradication
• containment
• asset protection.
There is an emphasis on prevention and eradication as it is believed that this provides the greatest potential benefit for the least cost. For
Parks Victoria, other priorities are high risk weeds and pests that have a sufficiently low area of distribution as to be eradicable and
programs addressing those species and locations where there is a high risk to significant values. Priorities within the context of the IPAPF in
the planning area are outlined in Table 1.
Many threatened species and communities are vulnerable to the impacts of invasive species. The Department of Sustainability and
Environment have implemented a web-based information system, Actions for Biodiversity Conservation (ABC), to help target resources to
higher priority actions and accumulate knowledge about threatened species and communities. ABC helps track the progress of
management actions in Action Statements prepared under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic.) and in Recovery Plans prepared
under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
A number of invasive species are listed as a potentially threatening process in accordance with Section 10 of the Flora and Fauna
Guarantee Act including blackberry, environmental weeds, Pittosporum undulatum, and rabbits, foxes, cats, and Sambar (see further
reading).
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
1
The Department of Sustainability and Environment have published Guidelines and Procedures for Managing the Environmental Impacts of
Weeds on Public Land in Victoria 2007 The Guidelines provide a decision-support system to enable public land managers to prioritise
locations and resources for weed management.
Parks Victoria uses a risk-based approach to target control programs in areas in parks of highest value exposed to the greatest threat from
introduced species. Parks Victoria also responds to concerns from park neighbours and supports the management of pest plants and
animals through Good Neighbour projects, which acknowledge that these pests can move between public and private land and so require
land managers to work together. Most control programs are designed to meet at least one of three objectives:
• protect important natural, cultural and other values
• reduce the risk of weeds expanding their distributions to new areas
• prevent the spread of invasive species onto neighbouring public and private land.
The current management plans identify a number of invasive species requiring priority management and broadly guide annual on-ground
pest plants and animals control programs and monitoring and research. Parks Victoria and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia
(Victoria) (SSAA) have established a Memorandum of Cooperation to provide a framework that will enable SSAA (Vic) volunteers to assist
in approved Parks Victoria control programs for pest and feral animals.
In 2003 and 2006 wildfires in the Alps burnt over 750 000 ha in national parks and reserves, and post-fire floods caused massive erosion
areas. The creation of vast, bare areas and flush of nutrients from the ash beds or deposited sediment promoted rapid growth of many
weeds. Weed control priorities across the fire affected area included eradicating new and emerging weeds, preventing the establishment of
new invasive species on fire control lines, reducing the threat of established high-risk, fire-responsive weeds such as broom, willows and
hawkweeds, reducing the threat of established weeds on the highest value areas at risk, removing willows and other weeds from bogs, and
decreasing the impact of fire responsive weeds and blackberry along the interface with private land (Pascoe 2007).
Priorities for control in recent years have focused on hawkweeds, English and Cape Broom, blackberry, willow, foxes, wild dogs and pigs.
These priorities were set using Levels of Protection risk based assessment and aim to avoid spread into uninfested assets.
Pest management programs are costly and resource intensive. In the last three years, more than $7 million has been spent on pest plant
and animal programs across the planning area. To increase effectiveness and cost-efficiencies, Parks Victoria is working in partnership with
other agencies, including Catchment Management Authorities, Shires, other government departments and communities to deliver landscape
scale projects including the ‘Highlands Down' and ‘Protecting the Best' pest plant initiatives. Parks Victoria also works closely with
volunteers to deliver programs such as willow control with the 4WD community and interstate agencies in NSW and ACT through Australian
Alps Liaison Committee in planning and implementing a coordinated approach to environmental management of the landscape.
See Map of Pest Plant and Animal Treatment Areas.
Trend and Extent of High Risk Invasive Species
Orange and King Devil Hawkweeds are State prohibited weeds in Victoria that must be eradicated from the state. Populations of both
species were increasing on the Bogong High Plains in the Alpine National Park, having escaped from the adjacent Falls Creek Alpine
Resort. Orange Hawkweed also occurs at Mount Buller Alpine Resort, and has potential to escape into the park in the Howqua River
catchment. Parks Victoria, in cooperation with the Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Falls Creek Alpine Resort and Falls Creek Ski Lift
Company is conducting an intensive eradication program that aims to prevent reproduction and kill all living plants in known infestations and
find as-yet undiscovered infestations in the Falls Creek area. Parks Victoria is also assisting Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Resort
Management Board and DPI with an eradication program at Mount Buller. Research and modelling by Melbourne University will help fill
critical knowledge gaps in hawkweed ecology, inform management actions and to guide survey efforts.
Himalayan Honeysuckle
Himalayan Honeysuckle is an invasive garden escapee spread by seed by native and introduced birds and Sambar deer. It occurs in Mount
Buffalo National Park and upstream of Mount Beauty in the East Kiewa valley of the Alpine National Park. A long-term control program at
Mount Buffalo National Park has been successful to the point where staff and contractors are struggling to find individual seedlings in areas
where the weed previously dominated the understorey. However, there are still isolated plants that need to be treated by abseiling down
rock faces to reach inaccessible ledges and gorges. A control program in the East Kiewa valley that aims to achieve similar results is
underway.
Willow
Many species of willows occur in the planning area; the two most widespread being Crack Willow Salix fragilis and Grey Sallow Salix
cinerea. Crack Willow is one of several species that is mostly spread vegetatively, by broken pieces of stem being carried downstream
along waterways. Grey Sallow, like other seeding willows, is mainly spread by wind-blown seed, allowing it to spread long distances and
even to high elevations, such as the Mount Buffalo and Baw Baw plateaus and the Bogong High Plains, where alpine peatlands have been
invaded. Populations are thought to be increasing in the Snowy River and Mount Buffalo National Parks and stable in the Alpine National
Park. Willow control strategies need to be structured to not only control targeted infestations, but also to reduce the potential for reinfestation
through control of upstream or upwind propagule sources. Considerable success has been had in recent years in controlling Grey Sallow
infestations at, and around Mount Buffalo, Baw Baw and Bogong High Plains to protect alpine peatlands from existing and potential future
infestations. Extensive control programs for Crack and other willow species have also been undertaken along some of the major waterways
2
Invasive Species —
in the planning area, including those in the Snowy, Mitta Mitta, Wonnangatta and Howqua catchments. The Howqua catchment, above Frys
Flat is now thought to be willow-free. Visitors are asked to advise Parks Victoria if they find any isolated willows that have been overlooked.
Many willow control programs have been undertaken in conjunction with relevant catchment management authorities and neighbouring land
managers, such as the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and volunteers including the 4WD community.
Blackberry
Numerous species of blackberry (Rubus spp.) occur throughout the planning area, particularly in moist environments, as their seeds are
readily dispersed by fruit-eating native and introduced birds and mammals. Populations are thought to be generally increasing across the
planning area. While blackberries are relatively easy to kill using appropriate herbicides, it is very difficult to prevent reinvasion of treated
areas. Control programs, once commenced, need to be maintained indefinitely. As a result of their dispersal ability and the length of time
blackberries have been present in eastern Victoria, they probably already occupy most suitable habitats within the planning area. It is also
likely as a result of climate change that blackberries may begin to invade areas at higher elevations that are currently too cold to be suitable
habitat.
Extensive control programs are being maintained in many areas, including the Howqua and Wonnangatta Valleys, where visitor access and
experience can be compromised by dense blackberry infestations, and the Buffalo Creek catchment, which contains several threatened
species and is largely weed-free. DPI has lead blackberry biocontrol programs in Victoria for many years and Parks Victoria has supported
these within the planning area.
English Broom
English Broom is a highly invasive shrub, capable of establishing a dense understorey monoculture that has escaped from gardens,
especially in old mining settlements. Populations are thought to be increasing particularly in the Alpine National Park where it has become
widespread in the Mitta Mitta catchment in the Alpine National Park. It also occurs in smaller (and in some cases isolated) infestations in
some other parts of the planning area, including the Kiewa, Ovens, Buckland, Catherine and Howqua catchments. Its seeds can remain
viable for many decades and can be widely dispersed by water, animals, vehicles, machinery, walkers and in materials used for road and
track construction and maintenance. Many isolated English Broom infestations can be traced back to the use of contaminated material from
gravel pits. Cattle inadvertently carried seeds of English Broom up to the Bogong High Plains from the Mitta Mitta Valley, and water has
carried broom seed along the Mitta Mitta River down to and beyond Lake Dartmouth, establishing dense infestations in many areas. Parks
Victoria has been leading a multi-agency, cross-tenure approach to the control of English Broom in the Mitta Mitta catchment for many years
with the dual aims of trying to prevent further spread and reducing the impacts of infestations. Due to seed longevity, sites need to be
treated regularly for many years.
Natural disturbance events can have a major impact on English Broom management. Floods can facilitate long-distance seed dispersal and
can also provide bare, nutrient-rich substrate for new infestations to germinate upon. Fire can kill mature infestations; however, it also
promotes the mass germination of soil-stored seed. In small and accessible infestations, this can provide an opportunity to achieve effective
control. However, in larger infestations, the number and density of seedlings can exceed control capacity. An English Broom Adaptive
Experimental Management program established in 2004 has measured the effectiveness of broom control techniques as well as the
response of native vegetation to the control programs. Following the 2006/07 fires in the western part of the planning area, Parks Victoria
has been successful in preventing the re-establishment of the numerous small and isolated English Broom infestations in the Catherine and
Howqua catchments by killing new seedlings before they can mature. Parks Victoria has been supporting DPI with the introduction of a
range of biocontrol agents to manage large and/or inaccessible English Broom infestations for many years. These programs offer the best
option for long-term reductions in the threats but were set back by the loss of biocontrol release and experimental sites in the 2003 and
2009 wildfires.
Cape Broom
Cape Broom has escaped from the Wonnangatta homestead site in the Wonnangatta Valley in the Alpine National Park. It has also been
recorded in Mount Buffalo and Baw Baw National Parks. Populations are thought to be increasing in the Alpine National Park. Like English
Broom, its seeds are very long lived and easily spread by water, animals and people. A control program along the Wonnangatta River has
been underway for many years in an attempt to contain the spread of this infestation. Fires in 2003 and 2006/07 killed many mature plants
but also promoted the regeneration of high densities of seedlings from the soil seedbank. Continuity of programs such as this over decades
is necessary to achieve long-term control, as further seed production from new seedlings that emerge from the depleting seedbank can
negate the benefits of previous successful control work.
Gorse
Gorse is a major agricultural and environmental weed because of its invasiveness, potential for spread, and economic and environmental
impacts. It is found more in the eastern parts of planning area, including Baw Baw National Park. Populations are thought to be increasing in
Mount Murphy Historic Area. It reduces native cover, provides shelter for pests such as rabbits and increases the risk of bushfires because
of its flammability.
Foxes
Foxes are an introduced predator that have spread across the southern two thirds of Australia and are implicated in the decline and
extinction of a wide range of ground-dwelling mammals and birds which have not evolved to cope with this adaptable and efficient hunter.
Populations are thought to be increasing in the Alpine, Snowy and Errinundra National Parks. Species highly susceptible to predation
include Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, Long-footed Potoroo and Long-nosed Bandicoot. Current control occurs through 1080 baiting across
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
3
large landscape scale areas, on the Bogong High Plains, around Mount Hotham, in the Barry Mountains, in Snowy River National Park to
assist in protecting Rock Wallabies and as part of the Southern Ark project controlling foxes across one million hectares in Far East
Gippsland. All control programs are conducted in conjunction with neighbouring public land managers (DSE and alpine resorts).
Wild dogs and Dingoes
Wild dogs are defined under the Catchment and Land Protection Act as dingoes, domestic dogs run wild and hybrids of the two. Wild dogs
occur primarily in forest habitats throughout eastern Victoria. They are the current top-order predator in the parks, having largely replaced
pure dingoes over the last two hundred years. Preying predominantly on the larger species of native wildlife (e.g. kangaroos and wallabies),
they are not considered a threat to most threatened fauna species. Wild dogs may play a role in helping to reducing numbers of other pest
animals, including rabbits, cats, foxes, pigs and goats, either by preying upon them or through competition for prey and territory.
In cleared country outside parks and State forests, wild dogs can attack stock, particularly sheep, goats and calves. Thought to be
widespread throughout the planning area, recent research suggests that wild dogs within parks and forests that are distant from pastoral
country, and therefore not subject to control programs, occur in relatively stable, predominantly sedentary packs and rarely venture out onto
pastoral lands. Across eastern Victoria, DPI leads the cross-tenure management of wild dogs, in cooperation with ministerial-appointed Wild
Dog Management Groups, Parks Victoria, DSE, farmers and the community. The program aims to protect stock by maintaining a dog-free
buffer along the interface of forested and agricultural land.
Dingoes have recently been listed as a threatened species under the FFG Act and an Action Statement is currently being prepared by DSE
(with input from a broad-based consultative group) to promote their conservation in areas where they do not pose a direct threat to livestock
enterprises. The greatest threat to dingo conservation is hybridisation with domestic dogs. It is likely that core areas of the parks within the
planning area that are distant from pastoral lands, together with adjacent areas of State forest, will form the core of an area in which dingoes
can live with minimal impacts from wild dog control activities.
Feral horses
The estimated feral horse population in the Alpine NP is approximately 3000, and populations are thought to be increasing. The main
population is in the eastern alps, between Buenba Flat and Mount Tingaringy and from Tom Groggin south to Nunniong Plain. A smaller,
isolated, population occurs on the Bogong High Plains, and there have also been occasional reports of feral horses in the Moroka River
headwaters. All populations occur in both the Alpine National Park and adjacent State forest, as well as nearby freehold land. The eastern
alps population also extends into Kosciuszko National Park in NSW.
The environmental effects of feral horses include soil loss, compaction and erosion, trampling of vegetation, reducing plant species
richness, inducing mortality of native trees, damage to bog habitat and water bodies and weed dispersal (Nimmo 2005). Feral horses
(mainly stallions) also occasionally harass or threaten park visitors and can pose a risk to vehicles on windy mountain roads. Horse
populations across the Kosciuszko and Alpine National Parks increased by over 300% between April 2003 and April 2009 (Dawson 2009),
despite control efforts in both states. The Bogong High Plains population has remained relatively static at about 100 horses over recent
years, despite the removal of approximately 80 horses.
Deer
Sambar are common and widespread in the planning area and anecdotal evidence suggests populations are increasing. Sambar are the
most widely hunted deer in the planning area, and appear to remain common in areas open for hunting. Fallow and red deer populations are
also thought to be increasing in the Alpine National Park. Sambar have recently been listed as a potentially threatening process under the
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (hyperlink). While population monitoring has recently commenced in the Alpine area, anecdotal
observations have highlighted localised impacts such as trampling. See the Recreational Deer Hunting Discussion Paper for further
information.
Rabbits
Rabbits are widespread across the planning area. Populations are thought to be increasing in some areas, including Mount Buffalo and
Errinundra National Parks, presumably due to a decrease in the efficacy of calicivirus. The Alpine National Park has the highest number of
species (17) at risk from rabbit disturbance and three of the other parks are among 22 across the state ranked highest for their rabbit
susceptibility (Long et al. 2003). Hares are common in some areas within the planning area (e.g. the Bogong High Plains in the Alpine
National Park) but their impacts are unknown.
Goats
Feral goats are a major environmental and agricultural pest that have a major effect on native vegetation through soil damage and
overgrazing of native herbs, grasses, shrubs and trees, which can cause erosion and prevent regeneration. They foul waterholes, and can
introduce weeds through seeds carried in their dung. Particularly during droughts, feral goats can compete with native animals and domestic
stock for food, water and shelter. Populations are thought to be increasing in some areas, including the Alpine and Snowy River National
Parks. Populations tend to recover well from culling and, except on islands, eradication is usually impossible. To protect the environment,
control is best focused on areas that contain threatened native plants, animals and communities.
Competition and land degradation by feral goats is listed as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Under the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth in consultation with the states and territories has
developed the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats.
4
Invasive Species —
Feral cats
Feral cats are widespread throughout Victoria. They are opportunistic predators and will eat a wide variety of foods. Their diet at any time
will usually consist of those species of prey most available to them. Dietary studies have shown that the European wild rabbit is the major
food item of feral cats in Victoria, but mice, smaller native mammals, reptiles, birds and invertebrates are also eaten. Population trends are
largely unknown but are thought to be increasing in the Alpine and Errinundra National Parks. No large-scale control methods are available
yet, and, in some areas they may have reached a state of equilibrium within their habitats. In areas with threatened species such as,
Smokey Mouse, Mountain Pygmy Possum and various alpine skinks traditional control measures such as shooting and trapping may be
used, however these may have limited effectiveness in either reducing cat populations or in protecting target prey species.
Trout and other introduced fish
Many rivers in the planning area offer very good recreational fishing for introduced Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout and many rivers support
self-sustaining populations of introduced fish species. Brown and Rainbow Trout are known to negatively impact on a range of native frogs,
fish (i.e. Mountain Galaxias) and macroinvertebrates, primarily by predation. The Department of Primary Industry's Fisheries Victoria
Division manages the fisheries resource by developing and implementing policies, and delivering a wide range of services. Fisheries
Victoria ( Fish stocking for recreational purposes Stocking Priority Table) has prioritised a number of waters near the planning area for fish
restocking of either salmonoid or native fish species including: Macalister River (upper), Snowy River, Mount Beauty Pondage and Mitta
Mitta River. The Department of Sustainability and Environment manages biodiversity and threatened fauna. There is a need to balance the
requirement to conserve native aquatic species and habitat, particularly in high elevation, small mountain streams and maintain high quality
recreational experiences in lower elevation, larger systems (see recreation discussion paper).
Pathogen infestations
Pathogen, a biological agent causing disease or illness, infestations in the planning area include Phytophthora cinnamomi, Armillaria
luteobubalina and Myrtle Wilt Chalara australia . These soil borne infestations can attack and destroy both the fine feeder roots and main
roots of many native trees and shrubs. In some ecosystems the impact is dramatic, leading to the loss of many plant species and native
animals that depend on them for food and shelter.
Phytophthora cinnamomi is found in the south of Snowy River National Park. Armillaria luteobubalina and Chalara australia are found in
Errinundra National Park. Victoria's Public Land Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Strategy (DSE 2008) aims to curb further spread
and to help coordinate and direct public land managers in managing this threat.
Directions
• Adopt the Invasive Plant and Animal Policy Framework in the planning area and the priorities detailed in Table 1.
• Monitor the effectiveness of all weed and pest animal programs to assess their effectiveness in achieving objectives for both threat
reduction and biodiversity conservation. Monitoring and evaluation should inform adaptive management and allow reporting and local and
statewide scales.
• Continue to undertake research to increase understanding of the extent and impact of high risk invasive species as well as measuring the
effectiveness of management programs. This includes:
• the need to determine the relationship between feral horse densities and levels of impacts and identify acceptable levels of impact on
which to base tolerable feral horse population densities;
• the extent and impact of Sambar and the effectiveness of control programs;
• the impact of invasive weeds such as Hawkweed and Broom;
• collection of baseline data on occurrence and distribution of invasive weed species in area of high conservation priority. • Continue to work
cross tenure with other agencies and land managers (including Catchment Management Authorities, DPI, DSE, alpine resorts, community
groups, park neighbours, and Australian Alps agencies) in cooperative management and monitoring programs.
• Develop a deer management strategy for the Alps to guide long-term management.
• Develop a feral horse management strategy for the Alps to guide long-term management.
• Liaise with Fisheries Victoria and DSE to address any impacts of fish stocking, ensure that rivers and streams and other waters currently
free of introduced species are not stocked or allowed to become colonised by introduced species and that high conservation priority (high
naturalness, threatened species), small upland mountain streams are protected from colonisation by trout.
• Undertake Good Neighbour deer and other control programs adjacent to freehold land, where required.
• Improve hygiene procedures and manage recreation and others uses of affected areas to contain the spread of pathogens.
Discussion Points
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
5
• Given the significant increase in the feral horse population, what are the most effective, safe and humane control strategies to reduce their
environmental impacts?
• With likely and expected increases in the distribution and extent of deer populations, what are the most effective strategies to reduce their
environmental impact?
• With significant environmental changes expected due to climate change, what should be the highest priorities for invasive species
management and monitoring?
Table 1: The Invasive Plant and Animal Policy Framework priorities for the planning area
Goal in the
planning area
Invasive species
Assets at risk
Priority
Prevent &
eradicate
New and emerging
weeds
Uninfested areas within the planning area
Surveillance to prevent establishment.
Eradicate
Hawkweeds
Alpine areas
Eradicate high-risk and manage new and emerging weed
incursions before they became established.
Eradicate from the Victorian alps
Uninfested areas within the planning area
Eradicate
Feral cattle (Wild)
Peatlands and riparian areas
Eradicate isolated feral (wild) cattle
Uninfested areas within the planning area
Contain
Feral horses
Peatlands and riparian areas
Control feral horses in the eastern alps
Remove all other isolated populations, including the Bogong
High Plains population and those from west of the Benambra
Corryong Road.
Contain
Feral pigs
Peatlands and riparian areas rainforests
Contain the spread of feral pigs from the Snowy River catchment
and adjacent areas.
Remove all other isolated pig infestations
Contain
Goats
Susceptible flora and vegetation
communities
Eradicate all isolated goat infestations
Contain
Willows
Alpine peatlands and willow-free
catchments and waterways
Contain seeding willows to prevent spread into key assets.
Remove willow seedlings from alpine peatlands and largely
willow-free catchments.
Remove non seeding willow seedlings from priority catchments
taking a top down approach
Contain
Himalayan
Honeysuckle
Cool high rainfall regions mainly in gullies
and protected hillsides with partial shade
and moist to wet fertile soils
Reduce infestations particularly in the Mount Buffalo and East
Kiewa areas to minimise capacity for further spread.
Contain
English Broom / Cape
Broom / Gorse
Alpine/sub-alpine areas and waterways
within and downstream of the planning
area
Contain to prevent the spread within and downstream of the
planning area.
Remove new and isolated infestations.
Support the establishment and spread of biocontrol agents to
reduce vigour and seed production
Asset
protection
Blackberry
Areas of high environmental, social and
economic value
Control to minimise impacts on areas adjacent to agricultural
land, alpine areas, key visitor destinations, access tracks and
other key environmental assets
Support the establishment and spread of biocontrol agents to
reduce the vigour and seed production of blackberry
Asset
protection
6
Weeds of alpine areas
such as Soft Rush,
Jointed Rush, Greater
Lotus, various
introduced grasses
Threatened Alpine vegetation
communities, including alpine peatlands
Invasive Species —
Reduce infestations to minimise capacity for further spread
Asset
protection
Foxes
Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby (SRNP), Longfooted Potoroo, Mountain Pygmy-possum,
Smokey Mouse, Broad-toothed Rat,
threatened alpine lizards and frogs
Fox baiting in targeted areas to protect key assets from
predation.
Asset
protection
Wild dogs
Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby (SRNP),
livestock enterprises on neighbouring
private land,
Support DPI and the North East and Gippsland Wild Dog
Management Groups in the implementation of tenure-blind wild
dog programs
Asset
protection
Feral cats
Susceptible threatened fauna species (e.g.
Mountain Pygmy-possum, Smokey Mouse,
alpine lizards and frogs
When a suitable cat-bait becomes available, cat baiting in
targeted areas to protect key assets from predation.
Asset
protection
Deer
Susceptible threatened plant species,
rainforests, peatlands and other vegetation
communities adversely affected (by loss of
structure and species)
Control Sambar to protect key assets in priority areas
Determine the levels of impacts caused by Sambar on alpine
peatlands.
Further research the types and levels of impacts caused by
Sambar, Red and Fallow deer.
Determine environmental objectives for deer management
Asset
protection
Rabbits
Susceptible flora and vegetation
communities (see (Long et al 2003).
Control populations in priority areas in accordance with PV's
Statewide Rabbit Risk Assessment.
Control rabbits to protect key assets in priority areas
Establish thresholds for the instigation of rabbit control in priority
areas
Asset
protection
Hares
Alpine bogs and peatlands, other
susceptible vegetation
Encourage research into the impacts of hares in priority areas
(e.g. alpine areas).
Further Reading
•
Adamson, K. 2008, Land asset-based approach framework, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
•
Dawson, M.J. 2008, Assessing the impact of Feral horses on Wet gully Communities in the Australian Alps National Parks, Report
prepared for the Australian Alps National Parks Natural Heritage Working Group.
•
DSE 2007 Guidelines and Procedures for Managing the Environmental Impacts of Weeds on Public Land in Victoria, Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
•
DSE 2008 Victoria's Public Land Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Strategy. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne.
•
DPI 2009, Draft Invasive Plants and Animals Policy Framework, Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne.
•
Long, K., Robley, A., Cheal, D., White, M., Carter, O., Tolsma A., and Oates, A 2003, Prioritisation of Rabbit Control within the Parks
Victoria Estate; reducing risks to environmental values, Report to Parks Victoria, Arthur Rylah Research Institute, Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. [add link]
•
Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council 2006, Australian Weeds Strategy - A national strategy for weed management in
Australia, DEWR, Canberra.
•
Nimmo, D, G., 2005, Managing Wild Horses In Victoria, Australia - A Study Of Community Attitudes And Perceptions, B.Sc. (Honours)
Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne.
•
Nimmo, D, G and Miller KK 2007, Ecological and human dimensions of management of feral horses in Australia: a review, Wildlife
Research,34, 408-417.
•
Parkes J, Henzell R and Pickles G (1999). Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Goats. Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
•
Parks Victoria 2007, Victoria's State of the Parks Report, Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
•
Pascoe, C 2007, Post-fire management: lessons from the Australian Alps, Weed Society of Victoria Third Biennial Conference ‘Earth
Wind Fire Water and Weeds'.
•
Robley, A., and Choquenot, D. 2002, Assessing the Alignment of Parks Victoria's Fox Control Program with Priorities for Reducing
Risks to Native Species. Report to Parks Victoria, Arthur Rylah Research Institute, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne.
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
7
Comments on the discussion paper
Comments on the discussion paper
Submitted by Louise Rose (Parks Victoria) on Thu, 15/04/2010 - 20:02
Invasive Species Discussion
Trout and other introduced fish
Managing and addressing risks of introduced species and their impacts upon the indigenous species of the planning area is clearly an
important management issue. Balancing conservation, climate change, introduced species and altered environments is a complex task
particulary when also ensuring access for recreational activities. As a recreational fisher, one item that jumps out at me in the
discussion paper is the value that is given to the lower elevation streams, where as many fishers particulary trout fishers give equal if
not higher value to their higher elevation counterparts. This is due to a number of factors such as the habitat, aesthetics and wild self
sustaining fisheries they contain.
The recreational value of high elevation streams with existing trout populations should be acknowledged; but equally; I would support
that high elevation streams that do not contain existing populations of trout being managed so that they remain free of trout and other
introduced fish species.
An example of a highly valued, small high plains creek with a healthy self sustaining population of trout is Watchbed Creek (picture
below).
Watchbed Ck
Duane Ck is an example of a creek that contains Galaxia species as well as being trout free. This would be an example of the types of
waters that we could encourage management that would result in maintaining a trout free status.
Duane Ck
Galaxia in Duane Ck.
Galaxia in Duane Creek
Trout in watchbed ck.
Trout in Watchbed Ck.
-- Dale McCabe - 11 Feb 2010
Dale,
These are really good points you raise, we'll take your suggestion on board. Thanks for the photos too, they really help to illustrate a
point.
-- Louise Rose - 11 Feb 2010
"Blackberry"
In addition to the observable impacts that invasive species (plant/weed) have on the indigenous landscape or enviornment of the
planning area it is important to also consider what impacts these species can have on recreational use and users. There are many
streams and rivers within the planning areas that are very difficult to access, or alternatively at the end of a recreational activity can be
very difficult to exit or simply navigate due to the thick and often impenetrable barrier that occurs along the riparian margin of creeks,
streams and rivers.
I would expect that there are examples within the planning area where an impact to the socio-economic contributions of recreational
activities occurs as a result of blackberry infestation.
-- Dale McCabe - 11 Feb 2010
Weed dispersal by vehicles
Does Parks have plans to provide wash stations for vehicles? Now that the Falls Creek -- Omeo Road has been sealed, vehicular traffic
has presumably increased, meaning there'll be a lot more seed dispersal along this road. A tyre wash station with signed information
about weeds could be set up at either end of the road for summer use. It might make walkers / horse riders more aware too - could
include a boot cleaning setup.
-- P Griffin - 11 Feb 2010
New invasive species
8
Invasive Species —
I suggest we need much better detection and quick response to new weed species. For example, there are several species invading
the Park from the Falls Creek Alpine Resort - yarrow being the most obvious. There are large patches of yarrow in the shrubland behind
Falls Creek Village, and extensive populations on the road from the village to the dam, which are clearly flourishing and producing large
amounts of seed. Individual plants can be found further along the Falls Creek -- Omeo Road. Resort Management needs to be strongly
encouraged to implement weed control (or e.g. guidelines for appropriate garden plants - I'd vote for local species only) in line with what
Parks is doing, and we need to get onto these species quickly, while they're still in the (relatively controllable) lag phase of population
expansion.
-- P Griffin - 11 Feb 2010 Wild dogs and Dingoes
What is the current status of the population of Dingoes in the Alpine National Park planning area? Are their studies or surveys which
establish their continued existence or are all populations now hybridized with domestic dog breeds? I have come across many
individual wild dogs where pastoral and park lands border each other, and have heard them howling along valleys in large numbers but
can only recall one instance whereby I ran into a pair that appeared, more dingo like than domestic/hybridized dog.
The Dingo certainly was a unique part of the landscape and I believe that the hybridization and loss of this animal from the landscape is
unfortunate to say the least. "Wild dogs", escaped domesticated or highly hybridized domestic dog/dingo do pose a threat to fauna and
live stock and are in some places relatively prolific.
There are also fears that some wild dogs or packs of dogs could pose a threat to people, I am not sure how real this threat is but I have
heard various anecdotal reports of people feeling or perhaps being under threat. From my own experience I have certainly felt fear
when running into them on one occassion but was not under any real threat as they (the dogs) turned and ran off into the snowgums.
"Dog Tree" Bundarra Valley, illustrates both the problem, the control and the unfortunate situation.
Dog Tree Bundarra Vly
-- Dale McCabe - 11 Feb 2010
Dale,
Charlie Pascoe, Manager Environmental Programs & Alpine Grazing, who is based at Bright has provided the following summary
regarding wild dogs and dingos. As Charlie notes, we're keen to hear from visitors of any incidents as we're not currently receiving
many reports. What's the best way Parks Victoria could receive feedback? Anyway, here is Charlie's summary...
It is not possible to reliability distinguish between dingoes and dingo-like hybrids by observation, only. If fact, it is not uncommon for wild
dogs with pronounced dingo-like external features to turn out, upon genetic testing, to in fact be hybrids.
Several projects are currently investigating the genetic composition of wild dogs in various parts of Australia (see links below for
examples). These studies will help identify areas where the most pure dingo populations occur. Samples from wild dogs caught in
eastern Victoria, including parts of the planning area, have been contributed to these studies.
http://www.wilddogdna.animals.uwa.edu.au/about_the_project/western_austr...
http://www.invasiveanimals.com/about/our_students/danielle_carey/index.html
http://www.wolfweb.com.au/acd/genvarindingo.htm
Recent studies in remote areas of south-eastern Australia, including the Alpine National Park and adjacent Kosciuszko National Park in
NSW found that, genetically, most of the 18 wild dogs caught could be classified as ‘mostly dingo', with few pure-bred dingoes being
caught. It is likely that hybridisation has probably extended across much of the planning area, although there are likely to be some
pockets of pure-bred dingoes remaining (see: http://www.australianalps.environment.gov.au/publications/research-repor...). This study
also found that wild dogs in remote areas mostly occupied large home ranges, suggesting that they probably occurred at relatively low
densities. Conversely, the wild dog control program run by the Department of Primary Industries finds that wild dogs around the edges
of the public land estate, in close proximity to freehold land (where the program focuses its activities to protect livestock), appear to be
present in higher densities. The Bundara Valley (illustrated by the writer) is a good example of such an area.
The Wikipedia article on the dingo includes a useful summary of the current scientific thinking on its role as an apex (or top-order)
predator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo. Unfortunately, most of the research conducted to date has been done in the flatter, more
arid parts of Australia, rather than the wetter, mountainous, predominantly-forested areas of the south-east.
The threats that wild dogs may pose to people is a good point. PV is keen to hear from visitors who may feel threatened by wild dogs.
At this stage, there have been few reports provided, but our education of park visitors on what and how to report incidents (and how to
react if they do feel threatened) has been minimal (non-existent?) to date. As the writer indicates, threats may be more ‘perceived' than
‘real'. Nevertheless, if human-wild dog interactions were to increase, we would need to develop an education strategy to inform visitors
on how to behave to minimise any risks and how to report any incidents (real or perceived) that did occur. (Such programs now exist in
other parts of Australia, including Fraser Island, northern coastal NSW and (presumably?) Ayers Rock.)
Wild dog control within the planning area will continue to be focussed in areas close to freehold land to protect livestock and grazing
enterprises.
-- Louise Rose - 15 Feb 2010
Thanks Louise (and Charlie) the "Dogs in Space" program was very interesting to read and cleared up some of my questions. I hope
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
9
that ongoing research occurs and is able to answer more questions; and that ongoing management is able to maintain the current level
of purity in the population that remains and who knows possibly even reintroduce more pure strains from conservation and
management efforts in the future if appropriate.
With regards to dealing effectively with wild or largely hybridized domesticated dogs along the perimeter of park land and pastoral land I
would encourage this as a means to protect both asset/s and the dingo (gene) alike. Ongoing monitoring and appropriate management
or control of more remote populations of wild dogs I would expect be reflective of populations, risks (both to asset, environment, dingo
gene or people) at any given time.
To what degree was the "dingo" in the Alpine planning area culturally integrated into the indigenous peoples of the planning area
(historically) and valued?
-- Dale McCabe - 15 Feb 2010
... the much maligned Sambar
Hi Louise,
My concern is for the much maligned Sambar Deer. Within the discussion paper the writer refers to the fact that "Himalayan
Honeysuckle has been spread by seed by native and introduced birds and Sambar deer", when in fact very little is known about the diet
of the Sambar. See Brett Parker's research on the diet of Sambar and Fallow deer in north east Victoria.
http://www.forestscience.unimelb.edu.au/people/postgrad/brett_parker/ind...
If the Sambar does have a fetish for the Himalayan Honeysuckle, does it eat the seeds or just the leaves? And if it does eat the seeds,
does it crush the seeds while chewing? Or is the digestive system of a Sambar deer such that the seeds will no longer germinate, after
they have passed through the deer? I personally do not know the answers to any of these questions, but I would hope that We(Plan)
would at least study and publish results before it implicated the Sambar deer as the guilty party.
Thanks,
-- Antony Borgese - 16 Feb 2010
Is there any basis for identifying the Sambar over other mammals as possible carriers/transporters of the seed?
-- Dale McCabe - 17 Feb 2010
Dispersal of Himalayan Honeysuckle attributed to Sambar
Antony and Dale,
Your comments reinforce the importance of a sound scientific basis for management issues such as this.
The research regarding this issue is documented in:
Eyles, D. (2002) Sambar Deer as a potential seed vector for the spread of the environmental weed Himalayan Honeysuckle at Mount
Buffalo National Park. BSc. (Hons) Thesis, University of Melbourne.
Eyles (2002) found viable seed of Himalayan Honeysuckle ( Leycesteria formosa) in faeces of Sambar ( Cervus unicolour) at Mount
Buffalo National Park.
" ... sambar deer pellets collected in Mount Buffalo National Park contained 0.4 Himalayan honeysuckle seeds per pellet and 20% of
these germinated (75% of uningested pellets germinated)..."
This thesis is cited in the FFG statement Reduction in biodiversity of native vegetation by Sambar (Cervus unicolor) and states Sambar
may also potentially be a vector for weeds such as Himalayan Honeysuckle ( Leycesteria formosa) (Eyles 2002) and aid in their spread
through the environment.
Interestingly the the Invasive Species Discussion Paper notes: "A long-term control program at Mount Buffalo National Park has been
successful to the point where staff and contractors are struggling to find individual seedlings in areas where the weed previously
dominated the understorey. However, there are still isolated plants that need to be treated by abseiling down rock faces to reach
inaccessible ledges and gorges."
Lets hope Sambar don't learn to use abseiling gear!!!
-- James Hackel - Parks Victoria - 18 Feb 2010
Comments by Bob Gough:
The recommended actions, of containment and study of invasive flora and fauna where eradication is not possible is in line with the IPA
strategy. It is pragmatic and acknowledges resource constraints. This, and the recognition of volunteers such as Bushcare and hunting
organisations as stakeholders may be an important paradigm shift, possibly the first recognition that:
* trout and deer have been running wild in Victoria for over 100 years and are naturalised,
* we can never return to 1770, and
* land managers like Parks VIC need to manage native and naturalised flora and fauna today, within resource constraints.
Capture of all stakeholders and lessons learned from other discussion papers
10
Invasive Species —
I note that other ANP discussion papers are referred to in the Invasive Species discussion paper, but are the key points (lessons
learned) from these papers being captured and considered by PV? I'm not so sure of this when the Invasive Species discussion paper
has no mention of the 2004 ADA-PV MoC? for deer, despite the majority of information on deer found in WePlan? being contributed by
ADA. And despite Para 6.3. of the 2005 SSAA -PV MoC? specifically mentioning that: "Parks Victoria is working with the ADA through a
MoC?, on deer management programs in parks and reserves. It is not intended that this agreement (the SSAA-PV MoC?) restrict the
ability of Parks Victoria and the ADA to work together on these programs."
Memorandum of Cooperation. The SSAA-PV MoC? (para 1.1) outlines Pest animals as "....in this document (the SSAA MoC?) to be
interpreted as cats, foxes, goats, pigs, dogs, and rabbits running wild...." The reference does not describe deer as pests.
This has long been understood by ADA to mean that, in order to fully include and engage volunteer organisations within their area of
expertise, PV has allocated non game species to SSAA and deer (a game species) to ADA. Should deer be declared a pest it will not
change ADA's position as stakeholders and the key contributors of knowledge on deer to the We Plan process. To leave ADA out of the
Invasive species discussion paper is like forgetting to fill up the car - the journey will be short, and may not reach the destination!
Directions
The directions are sound and comply with the IPA Strategy draft. Stakeholders such as ADA, SSAA and Bushcare are already involved
in monitoring the effectiveness of weed, deer and pest animal programs, and have capacity and interest to be more involved. Having
been involved in the monitoring of sambar in three locations I can vouch that the work is valuable both in understanding the species,
and in the creation of networks and common understanding between stakeholders and PV.
ADA members, many of whom have tertiary qualifications and hands on experience in wildlife management, would be more than willing
to work with PV to develop the deer management strategy, indeed, we have been asking DSE to develop a deer management strategy
for nearly 40 years.
Discussion Points
Given the significant increase in the feral horse population, what are the most effective, safe and humane control strategies to reduce
their environmental impacts?
Feral horse management is politically sensitive, however a combination of live capture, Heli shooting and ground shooting should be
considered. Shooting by trained sharpshooters (volunteers or paid) has long been proven to be the most effective, safe and humane
control for large mammals.
With likely and expected increases in the distribution and extent of deer populations, what are the most effective strategies to reduce
their environmental impact?
I note that the discussion paper contains the usual one liner that "deer persist in areas open to recreational hunting" while this is true
there is no science on the comparison of damage in areas open and closed to recreational hunting, so, to me, the comment is made
from the total eradication standpoint, which is not supported by the IPA strategy. There is no consideration of population densities that
cause damage, nor is there any acknowledgement that the identified areas of damage (so far) only exist in areas closed to recreational
hunting.
First prove the impacts and contributing and potential regulating factors, then prove the densities that cause environmental impact, then
develop a management strategy that includes and fully employs stakeholders within their abilities and focuses on heavy female harvest
to reduce recruitment, with a spread of options from recreational hunting to control programs using volunteer trained sharpshooters and
/ or paid professional shooters. Reduce limiting factors and barriers to participation, e.g. use game licence fees to upgrade some major
tracks that will promote winter access instead of closing them. Increase enforcement and increase fines for the release of deer. To
reduce the release of deer from deer farms, lobby the Commonwealth Invasive Animals CRC to include farmed deer onto the NLIS
(National livestock tracking system) as is required for cattle and other livestock.
With significant environmental changes expected due to climate change, what should be the highest priorities for invasive species
management and monitoring?
PV have procedures in place for managing deer (ADA-PV MoC?) and pest animals (SSAA-PV MoC?). Weeds should be priority one,
they spread seed in the thousands and no-one values them, so they will take most of your resources. When you study weed dispersal,
is it better to ask: "Do deer or pigs spread weeds" (as was done with the Himalyan Honeysuckle research), or "What native and
naturalised animals spread weeds". This will address the primary causes of the problem, i.e,. what is spreading weeds, rather than
demonise a particular species.
Actions
I support the following actions mentioned:
* Eradicate isolated feral (wild) cattle, (use SSAA volunteers under the SSAA-PV MoC?)
* Control feral horses in the eastern alps, Remove all other isolated populations, including the Bogong High Plains population and those
from west of the Benambra Corryong Road.
* Contain the spread of feral pigs from the Snowy River catchment and adjacent areas. Remove all other isolated pig infestations (use
SSAA volunteers under the
* Eradicate all isolated goat infestations, (use SSAA volunteers under the SSAA-PV MoC?)
* Fox baiting in targeted areas to protect key assets from predation. (use SSAA volunteers under the SSAA-PV MoC?)
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
11
* Support DPI and the North East and Gippsland Wild Dog Management Groups in the implementation of tenure-blind wild dog
programs, (use SSAA volunteers under the SSAA-PV MoC?)
* When a suitable cat-bait becomes available, cat baiting in targeted areas to protect key assets from predation. (PAPP is showing
promise in trials in other states) (use SSAA volunteers under the SSAA-PV MoC?)
* Control sambar to protect key assets in priority areas (under the ADA -PV MoC?)
* Determine the levels of impacts caused by sambar on alpine peatlands (using ADA volunteers).
* Further research the types and levels of impacts caused by sambar, red deer and fallow deer (using ADA volunteers and ADA
knowledge networks).
* Determine environmental objectives for deer management (using ADA volunteers and ADA knowledge networks).
- Bob Gough - 02 Mar 2010 I
Invasive Species Discussion paper comments by Kate Breuer, RSPCA (Victoria):
Given the significant increases in the feral horse population, what are the most effective, safe and humane control strategies to reduce
their environmental impacts?
In considering the most effective, safe and humane control strategies to reduce the environmental impacts of large feral horse
populations, it is important to recognise that prevention should be taken into account before control of populations is necessary. Ideally,
prevention strategies should be implemented to ensure that control methods are not required in the future. However, when the need for
control is justified on the basis of environmental damage mitigation and animal welfare, there are a number of principles that we believe
should be followed when selecting and implementing the most humane control method. Animal Welfare should be an integral part of the
decision making process.
1. The aims or benefits and the harms of each control program must be clear. Control should only be undertaken if the benefits
outweigh the harms.
2. Control should only be undertaken if there is a likelihood that the aims can be achieved.
3. The most humane methods that will achieve the control program's aims must be used.
4. The methods that most effectively and feasibly achieve the aims of the control program must be used.
5. The methods must be applied in the best possible way.
6. Whether or not each control program actually achieved its aim must be assessed.
7. Once the desired aims or benefits have been achieved, steps must be taken to maintain the beneficial state.
8. Where there is a choice of methods, there needs to be a balance between humaneness, community perception, feasibility,
emergency needs and efficacy.
These principles are provided in detail in the attached document.
The necessity, effectiveness and humaneness of the control method must be assessed. A model has been developed to assess the
animal welfare impact of control methods and should be used in deciding on the humaneness of strategies to control feral horses. The
following link provides information about the model:
http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/aaws/humaneness_of_pe...
Best practice principles should be applied when implementing a strategy to control feral horses. A Code of Practice (COP) for the
control of feral horses) should be developed and must be enforceable. The NSW Department of Primary Industries has developed a
COP which covers each of the key pest animal species. It has been adopted by the Commonwealth Government for lands under its
control, particularly defence estate and national parks, and has been endorsed by NSW Pest Animal Council. It has been written to be
applicable across the whole of Australia. It provides general information on best practice management, control strategies, species
biology and impact, and the humaneness of current control methods. We recommend that this COP be reviewed when implementing
humane control methods on feral horse populations. The following link provides access to the COP:
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/vertebrate-pests/codes...
With likely and expected increases in the distribution and extent of deer populations, what are the most effective strategies to reduce
their environmental impact?
Any measures taken to reduce or eradicate a specific population of ‘pest' animals must recognise that these animals require the same
level of consideration for their welfare as that given to domestic and native animals. The RSPCA advocates that like feral horses,
animal welfare should be an integral part of the decision making process in control of deer populations.
We consider that the same principles should be used in selecting and implementing control methods for deer. The DAFF model should
be used to assess the animal welfare impact of control methods and best practice principles should be applied when implementing the
control strategy for deer. Please refer to our response above on feral horse control for full details.
With significant environmental changes expected due to climate change, what should be the highest priorities for invasive species
management and monitoring?
When prioritising which invasive species to manage and monitor, the worst impacts should be focussed on. The priorities should be set
against the importance of the species and the ability to reduce the impact of that species.
-- Dr Kate Bruer - 23 Mar 2010
12
Invasive Species —
non native animal control by legal deer hunters
Submitted by weakestlink (Just me) on Fri, 18/06/2010 - 00:00
I do not understand why people legally hunting Sambar in National Parks are not allowed to control other non native animals. We
regularly encounter foxes, cats or other species of deer in our national parks. I feel all non native animals which are not protected
should be encoraged to be culled in all national parks were deer hunting for sambar is permitted. Seeing the damage cats and foxes
are doing is particularly distressing and obvious to people walking remote areas of the parks by the number of small native animal
bones and skeletons often found. We are currently not allowed to control these types of non native animals. I thinks all people legally
hunting should be strongly encouraged to control non native animals in my opinion.
The discussions are very interesting and I appreciate the opertunity to contribute- Thanks
non-native animal control by legal deer hunters
Submitted by James Hackel (Parks Victoria) on Fri, 18/06/2010 - 10:24
Thanks for your comment. This topic was was discussed in the Blog - "Deer Hunting Discussion Paper". Follow this link to the thread:
http://203.19.59.184/node/575#comment-629
One of the key points in this thread was recognising the limitations imposed by the National Parks Act 1975 to restrict the use of
firearms to the Stalking of Deer only. Changes in legislation are outside the scope of the management planning process. An other point
in this thread is that we have co-ordinated control programs with hunting bodies as an effective approach to pest managment and that
ad-hoc take of pest species by recreational hunting does not constitute effective control.
Interested to hear your thoughts after you have reviewed the thread. Regards, James Hackel
Discussion Paper
Greater Alpine National Parks
13