Final Report of the Independent Technical Reference Group
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Final report of the Independent Technical Reference Group Supplementary to the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Management Plan © 2016 State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage The State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has compiled this technical report in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs. This report was prepared for OEH by the Independent Technical Reference Group (ITRG): Dr Mark Lonsdale, Monash University and Charles Darwin University (Chair) Dr Bidda Jones, RSPCA Australia (Deputy Chair) Dr Sara Beavis, Australian National University Professor Elissa Cameron, University of Tasmania Professor Emeritus Geoffrey Hope, Australian National University Professor Emeritus Reuben Rose, University of Sydney Dr Glen Saunders, NSW Department of Primary Industries Professor Alan Welsh, Australian National University. The ITRG may be contacted via [email protected] Recommended citation: ITRG 2016, Final report of the Independent Technical Reference Group: Supplementary to the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Management Plan, report by the Independent Technical Reference Group to the Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, Sydney. All content in this publication is owned by OEH and is protected by Crown Copyright. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) , subject to the exemptions contained in the licence. The legal code for the licence is available at Creative Commons . OEH asserts the right to be attributed as author of the original material in the following manner: © State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage 2016. Published by: Office of Environment and Heritage 59 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232 Phone: +61 2 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks, general environmental enquiries, and publications requests) Fax: +61 2 9995 5999 TTY users: phone 133 677, then ask for 131 555 Speak and listen users: phone 1300 555 727, then ask for 131 555 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected] See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au ISBN 978-1-76039-322-9 OEH 2016/0221 March 2016 Final report of the Independent Technical Reference Group Contents List of figures iv List of tables iv Executive summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Wild horse management in Kosciuszko National Park 1 1.2 Role of the Independent Technical Reference Group 1 1.3 Methodology of this report 2 2. Are horse numbers on the increase? 3 2.1 Assessing trends in horse numbers 4 2.2 How do densities and rates of increase vary across the park? 4 2.3 What impact would different levels of removal have on horse numbers? 6 2.4 How many horses are in the park now? 8 3. Do horses have an impact on park values? 8 3.1 What impacts – positive or negative – are occurring? 8 3.2 What is the relationship if any between horse numbers and impact on park values? 14 3.3 What are the best measures of success in reducing and/or ameliorating impact? 14 4. If horses have to be removed, what methods are currently or potentially available? 15 4.1 Overview of control methods for wild horses 15 4.2 Assessing the humaneness of different control methods 15 4.3 Humaneness assessment model applied to horses in KNP 16 4.4 How do the available methods compare in terms of humaneness? 19 5. What are the options for management of wild horses in KNP? 21 5.1 Overview of issues considered 22 5.2 Is eradication of wild horses from KNP feasible? 22 5.3 What are the options for acceptable densities, regional distributions, and impact? 24 5.4 Stakeholder submissions to the ITRG 25 5.5 What scientific criteria could NPWS use to prioritise different zones for management of horses? 26 5.6 External interactions with KNP 29 5.7 Application of control methods across diverse landscapes 29 5.8 Selection of control options appropriate for each environment type 33 5.9 Fate of captured horses 38 5.10 What is the overall management objective? 38 iii Final report of the Independent Technical Reference Group 6. What are the priorities for research to inform management of wild horses in KNP? 39 6.1 Overview of approach taken 39 6.2 Stakeholder suggestions for further research 40 6.3 Research priorities identified by the ITRG 41 7. Acknowledgements 42 8. References 42 Appendix A: Independent Technical Reference Group terms of reference 51 Appendix B: Stakeholder submissions to the ITRG on horses in KNP 54 Appendix C: Assumptions about the various control methods on which the humaneness assessments were based (cf. Table 7) 62 List of figures Figure 1: Single and multi-stage wild horse control methods and their outcomes 18 Figure 2: Map of KNP wild horse management regions 27 Figure 3: Map indicating where various control options are feasible 34 List of tables Table 1: Meetings held by the ITRG to October 2015 3 Table 2: Areas, estimated densities of horses and coefficients of variation from four aerial surveys of horse populations in the Australian Alps National Parks and adjacent state forests 4 Table 3: Approximate area, estimated number of horses, estimated density of horses and coefficient of variation (CV) from six aerial surveys of horse populations in the Big Boggy region of the Australian Alps National Parks 5 Table 4: Observed numbers of horses in the Northern KNP region of the Australian Alps National Parks according to data taken from the flight maps 6 Table 5: Demographic parameters of wild horse populations 7 Table 6: Documented environmental impacts of horses (including Przewalski horses) in different habitat types across the globe 9 Table 7: Assessment scores for each control method and stage 20 Table 8: Assessing the prospects for eradication of wild horses from all of KNP 23 iv Final report of the Independent Technical Reference Group Executive summary Key findings I. The Independent Technical Reference Group (ITRG) has not been able to reach a conclusion on trends over time in horse numbers or densities in Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) because of problems of comparability between successive horse surveys (see Section 2, Are horse numbers on the increase?). II. The ITRG considers that a figure of about 6000 horses in KNP in 2014, from the draft aerial survey report (Cairns 2015), is a reasonable working estimate to guide future management of horse impacts (see Section 2.4, How many horses are in the park now?). III. The ITRG finds, based on published scientific criteria (Bomford & O’Brien 1995; Simberloff 2003), that eradication of wild horses from KNP is not achievable, although their complete exclusion from certain parts of the park is possible (see Section 5.2, Is eradication of wild horses from KNP feasible?). IV. The ITRG concludes that the evidence of environmental harm is sufficient that wild horse populations must be managed in KNP (see Section 3.2.5, Conclusions – the environmental impact of horses). V. A significant majority of stakeholder organisations who provided submissions and presentations to the ITRG, including some of those who are essentially pro-horse, provided submissions supporting the contention that some management of wild horses was necessary in KNP (see Section 5.4, Stakeholder submissions to the ITRG). VI. The ITRG has carried out a thorough consideration of the humaneness and utility of various control methods for horses in KNP (see Section 4, If horses have to be removed, what methods are currently or potentially available?). Of the live capture methods assessed, we found that passive trapping and mustering in small groups had the lowest relative impact on animal welfare, when considered up to the point of removal from the park. VII. Of the in situ lethal control methods assessed, aerial shooting under a ‘best practice scenario’ had the lowest overall animal welfare impact. Where these conditions are not achievable, ground shooting, or passive trapping/mustering followed by on-site humane killing, were the next best options. VIII. Fertility control is only a viable option where horse densities are already low and the objective is to gradually reduce or maintain the population at a low density. Its broad- scale effectiveness in the context of KNP (or in any other large wild population) is yet to be determined (see Section 5.7.2, Control methods assessed in a management context). IX. The ITRG considers that dividing the park into specific zones to facilitate management of wild horses will allow coexistence of diverse values in KNP, and provides scientific criteria and options for how such zones may be delineated and applied (see Section 5, What are the options for management of wild horses in KNP?). In these zones, different combinations of control methods would apply, using an integrated approach to increase effectiveness. The outcomes of management would ideally be monitored primarily through the effects on agreed impact measures or thresholds of concern, rather than just on horse numbers or densities.