The Executive Officer Environment, Natural Resources and Regional Development Committee Parliament House Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUBMISSION 67 RECEIVED 01/08/2016 The Executive Officer Environment, Natural Resources and Regional Development Committee Parliament House Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Submission by Robert (Bob) Gough to the Parliament of Victoria Inquiry into the control of invasive animals on Crown Land Dear Executive Officer, Please find attached my submission to the Parliament of Victoria Inquiry into the control of invasive animals on Crown land. I very much support the current regulations that permit recreational deer hunting in some of Victoria’s National Parks, and the use of volunteer hunters in well managed control programs on all crown land. The views expressed throughout this submission are my own, and do not represent any policy or standpoint other than my own. I am very willing to give evidence on any aspect of this submission at any public hearing conducted by the Inquiry. Yours Sincerely Bob Gough Submission by Robert (Bob) Gough to the Parliament of Victoria Inquiry into the control of invasive animals on Crown Land 2 “The best way to control deer is to get people to hunt more like wolves. “We should be shooting does, not bucks.” “We should have longer hunting seasons and ask hunters to shoot more than one deer.”1 Executive Summary 1. Few Australians would know that volunteer hunters from community based hunting organisations such as the ADA, SSAA and Field and Game Australia (FGA) have for many years been participating in targeted culling programs to manage overabundant and invasive native and introduced species in all Australian states except the ACT. For over 10 years across Victoria, volunteer hunters have conducted both simple and complex invasive species management on crown and private land with a range of Government and Non Government organizations and private landholders, including Parks Victoria (PV), DELWP, Trust for Nature and Landcare Victoria. Because these programs are well planned and highly organised they have an enviable safety record. The difference between these programs and common wildlife control as practiced in Australia is that they provide a sustained management effort through the long term personal investment of time and effort by volunteers. For example, organizations such as FGA have purchased conservation land in their own right at Heart Morass, and for over 40 years have built water bird nest boxes on public land, and conducted regular fox drives on Crown and private land. 2. The ADA signed a MoU with PV for deer related activities in 2004, and the SSAA signed a similar MoU for non game species in 2005. These MoU have since been modified to allow either organisation to manage any game or non game overabundant species, and it is now common for ADA and SSAA to partner on management programs for a range of species across all land tenures. The “Social License” generated by these grass roots community based programs has seen them expand in number, frequency and complexity. 3. This submission will present examples from the Author’s direct personal experience, and will suggest options for change that will allow the valuable contribution made by volunteer hunters to continue, and hopefully, to expand and improve its efficacy. For clarity, this submission is presented in three parts: 4. Part One. This section will address the Terms of Reference issued by the Parliament of Victoria, using Case Studies from the Wilson’s Promontory National Park (WPNP) Hog Deer Management Program 2015 and the Chiltern National Park Noisy Miner Management Program 2015 as well as the Author’s direct personal experience to assess the relative financial, social and environmental costs and benefits of these programs; and to highlight positive biodiversity outcomes, safety management and the benefits of spatial separation and geographically widely disbursed hunting. The Author will then use the PV – ADA – SSAA Alpine National Park (ANP) Deer Control Trial 2014 - 2020 as a case study to discuss the procedural, terrain and equipment limitations of these programs. Lastly, the effectiveness of current game Law and Regulations, and Public Safety issues of illegal shooting and associated criminal activity such as stock theft will be discussed. 1 Don Waller, Biologist, University of Wisconsin–Madison USA quoted in Levy. S, A Plague of Deer, BioScience • September 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 9 www.biosciencemag.org Submission by Robert (Bob) Gough to the Parliament of Victoria Inquiry into the control of invasive animals on Crown Land 3 5. Part Two. In order to give the Inquiry a more complete understanding of the broad involvement and sustained contribution of community based hunting organisations in invasive species management, Part Two will use case studies of current community based wildlife management programs on private land where Landcare Groups, Individual Landowners and non government conservation organisations are using volunteer hunters to achieve positive environmental, financial and social outcomes. Part two will also discuss the recent round of community based Landcare Deer Workshops conducted in Northeast Victoria, where the Author took a lead role as a subject matter expert on deer behaviour and on the lethal and non lethal management of deer. Lastly, a table outlining community based volunteer hunter programs operating in other Australian states will be presented to demonstrate the broad acceptance of volunteer hunters in wildlife management. 6. Part Three. This section will discuss factors related to the Inquiry Terms of Reference, and to the management of overabundant native and introduced species on both public and private land, including legislative matters such as wildlife carcass disposal, and will discuss why demonizing overabundant or invasive native and introduced wildlife is counterproductive to effective population management. These factors, if modified without full consideration of potential impacts and ‘downstream effects”, may have negative and unintended financial and conservation consequences on a range of public and private stakeholders and agricultural industries; and have the potential to remove current control options, such as recreational deer hunting in the Alpine National Park (that removed 30,000 deer in 2015 at no cost to the taxpayer), while affecting no actual change to current legal management methods or the development of future management options, including the use of toxicants for overabundant species such as deer. 7. Recommendations will be made throughout each section, and will be summarised in a table at the end of the document. Annexes will be used to present related information. Throughout this submission, the Author will present evidence that will prove beyond any doubt the economic, social and environmental benefits of government agencies and community based hunting organisations partnering in the management of overabundant and invasive native and introduced wildlife. Submission by Robert (Bob) Gough to the Parliament of Victoria Inquiry into the control of invasive animals on Crown Land 4 Introduction 8. Australia’s Hunting History and Culture. Hunting for food, or to protect economic, environmental or social values has played a significant role in the lives of many Victorian’s since European settlement, yet Australia’s hunting culture is largely unrecognized and mostly conveniently ignored. The Australian Hunting Archive, which is funded by FGA and managed by Mr Max Downes, a wildlife biologist, and Victoria’s first government employed Game Manager, has a wealth of information recording hunting, hunting related use of land, and management of wildlife impacts. 9. The Role of Volunteer Hunters. Volunteer Hunters have a vital and expanding role to play in the management of invasive species on both public and private land. Volunteer hunters come from all walks of life, and bring with them a range of knowledge, first hand experience, specialist skills and attitudes that are readily employable in the management of a variety of overabundant or invasive species in order to derive a conservation benefit or to reduce environmental, economic and social impacts. In Victoria, hunters have monitored wildlife impacts, interpreted remote sensing camera (trail camera) data; constructed exclusion fencing to protect high value sites; trained their own members to high standards of marksmanship, navigation, field craft and in the operation of specialist equipment such as global positioning and mapping systems, drone aircraft and infra red and thermal image optical devices for use in targeting wildlife (some individuals have also privately purchased these very expensive devices for use on operations). 10. Since 2003, community based hunting organisations have regularly planned and conducted complex and sustained operations to manage populations of overabundant introduced and native species in locations as diverse as the remote Little Desert National Park, spatially restricted peri-urban sites such as Yellingbo National Park, near Melbourne; and iconic areas such as the Alpine National Park and most recently Wilson’s Promontory National Park. In the Chiltern National Park, one volunteer hunter and one DELWP Biodiversity Officer partnered to plan and conduct culling operations that removed over 300 invasive Noisy Miners (an overabundant native bird species that was impacting on an endangered native bird species) across multi-organisational boundaries with private landholders, Parks Victoria (PV), North East Water and DEPI/DELWP. 11. Volunteer hunters have also researched and written a range of policy