Improving the development of effective and humane · PDF fileIMPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE AND ... This project (t ender number 5 ... prevention of cruelty to animals legislations

FINAL REPORT FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE IMPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE AND HUMANE TRAPPING SYSTEMS AS A CONTROL METHOD FOR FERAL GOATS IN AUSTRALIA. Published February 2004 Prepared by: Mr Keith Bellchambers Director Ardeotis Biological Consultants Pty Ltd 74 Arkaba Street HAWKER SA 5424 © Commonwealth of Australia. Information contained in this publication may be copied or reproduced for study, research, information or educational purposes, subject to inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. This report should be cited as: Bellchambers, K. (2004) Improving the development of effective and humane trapping systems as a control method for feral goats in Australia. This project (tender number 5/2003; ID number: 40469) was funded by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage through the national threat abatement component of the Natural Heritage Trust.

Ardeotis Biological Consultants Pty. Ltd. 1

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 2 LIST OF FIGURES 2 LIST OF PLATES 2 LIST OF APPENDICES 2 DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 6 ITEM 1 The effectiveness of permanent traps placed on water sources as a

means of capturing feral goats, and the effects these traps have on domestic livestock. 13

ITEM 2 The most effective trap designs and the relative cost effectiveness of

individual trap designs as a means of capturing feral goats and protecting local populations of endangered species. 18

ITEM 3 Feral goat behaviour at traps and potential weak points in designs

that may compromise their effectiveness. 28 ITEM 4 Feral goat behaviour at traps on water sources and guidelines on

their usage that will ensure that animal welfare is not compromised. 32 ITEM 5 Information on management options for humane disposal of feral

goats that are trapped. 37 RECOMMENDATIONS 43 BIBLIOGRAPHY 45 APPENDICES 52


LIST OF TABLES Table 1: A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of various goat

control techniques. 12 Table 2: Stages in development of effective self-mustering trap-yards. 14 Table 3: Effectiveness of selected goat trapping trials throughout Australia. 16 Table 4: A summary of the costs associated with the construction of examples

of self -mustering trap yards in use around Australia. 21 Table 5: Value of export goat industry to Australia. 41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1a: Square shaped self -mustering trap yard design. 23 Figure 1b: Triangular shaped self-mustering trap yard design. 24 Figure 1c: Round shaped self-mustering trap yard design. 24 LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: Ringlock mesh fencing and one -way spear-gates in a self-mustering

trap-yard. 22 Plate 2a: Fabricated self -mustering trap-yard with Kangaroo gate and shade cloth. 26 Plate 2b: Fabricated self-mustering trap-yard with Kangaroo gate raised for

training and lowered during trapping. 26 Plate 3: Jump-down trap, jump and gate. 52 Plate 4: Timber two-way long spear gate: one fixed side, one swinging side. 53 Plate 5: The Wyloo (Western Australia) short spear gate. 54 Plate 6a: Permanent ‘Boolathana’ trap-gate – walk in, walk out. 55 Plate 6b: Permanent ‘Boolathana’ trap-gate – trapping position. 56 Plate 6c: Permanent ‘Boolathana’ trap-gate – closed. 56 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Designs and specifications for examples of self-mustering trap

yards in use in Australia. 52 Appendix 2: Websites useful for aspects of this project. 59


DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth Government or the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Copyright material of Commonwealth of Australia was reproduced in this report by permission. Information was sourced from the following publications: Braysher, M., (1993). Managing Vertebrate Pests – Principles and Strategies. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, ACT, Parkes, J., Henzell, R., and G. Pickles (1996) Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Goats. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra., Ramsay, BT (1994) Commercial use of wild animals. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Copyright permission to reproduce information and images from other sources has also been obtained. Sources of additional information included in this report are cited where appropriate in the text and included in full in the Bibliography. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of people gave generously of their time and expertise to provide information and to discuss aspects of the report. Damien Pearce, Program Manager, South Australian Department of Environment and Heritage discussed trap-yard designs, goat behaviour in and near trap-yards, impacts of trap-yards on off-target species and economic, social and environmental benefits of sustainable goat control. Robert Henzell, Senior Research Officer, South Australian Animal and Plant Control Commission discussed trap-yard designs, goat behaviour and environmental impacts of feral goats. Chris Turner, Senior Pastoral Inspector, South Australian Pastoral Board discussed trap-yard design and goat and livestock behaviour. Kevin Stubing, Broken Hill Exports discussed feral goat markets, transportation and aspects of animal welfare issues. Mike Peters, RSPCA discussed aspects of animal welfare issues. Andrew Lewis, Senior Meat Inspector, AQIS provided information on feral goat numbers slaughtered for export. The report benefited from additional comments provided by Damien Pearce, Robert Henzell and Nicki de Preu. Lorraine Edmunds provided advice and assistance with selection and presentation of graphics and designed and formatted the front cover. Images used on the front cover are courtesy of Lorraine Edmunds and Operation Bounceback.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Populations of feral goats are now found in every state and territory of Australia with the exception of the Northern Territory and, in addition, are also found on a number of offshore islands and territories. The largest and most persistent populations of feral goats are found in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The widespread distribution, large population numbers, ability to rapidly increase in numbers, dietary preferences and difficulty to manage combined with the fragile nature of much of the country in which they are found has meant that competition from, and land degradation by, feral goats is threatening some ecological communities and certain native fauna and flora species. These reasons led to ‘Competition and land degradation from feral goats’ being identified as a Key Threatening Process under Schedule 3 of the Commonwealth’s former Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (now listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ). In addition to impacts on the natural environment the feral goat is also a competit or to managed livestock enterprises for forage and water, particularly in drier times. A number of specific control techniques have been developed for the management of feral goat populations. This report is concerned with one of the techniques - the trapping of feral goats at water-points. This technique seeks to take advantage of the feral goats need to access free water, particularly during dry times and the limited way that natural and artificial water-points are distributed throughout the feral goats range in the arid and semi-arid rangelands where it is most effective. There is a long history of trapping livestock species at water-points in Australia and overseas and the development of this particular feral goat control technique has utilised that experience and information base. The self -mustering technique involves confining the target animals, whether they are livestock or feral goats, to a yard that encloses either a natural or artificial water-point The particular advantages of this technique are that it is low technology and relatively inexpensive, the infrastructure needed can be used for other livestock enterprises and it provides the option of the humane slaughter of the captured goats or their sale off-property to recoup some of the construction and maintenance costs. The successful operation of permanent trap-yards at water points to catch feral goats requires a commitment of time and resources on behalf of the land manager and there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the use of this control technique compared with other goat control techniques. The advantages in adopting this goat control technique continue to accrue throughout the life of the trap-yards while the disadvantages can be effectively managed and planned for and incorporated into the daily routines of the particular land management unit. The cost associated with trapping feral goats has two components: the costs associated with planning, constructing and maintaining the trap and associated infrastructure and the actual costs of operating the trap. The various self-mustering trap-yards in use around


Australia provide the greatest benefits and returns in situations such as pastoral properties where livestock is managed and is regularly mustered for management purposes and where water points are formalised. Regardless of the design chosen in the construction of the trap-yard system as the most suitable in that circumstance, there are some common requirements that should be incorporated into an effective trap-yard system to maximise returns while limiting stress to trapped animals and their handlers and preventing escapes from the yards. These are recommended regardless of whether the trap-yard is used for purely livestock enterprises, a mix of livestock and feral goat enterprises or purely feral goat trapping. Several recent publications have summarised the technical and operational aspects of the use of self-mustering trap-yards. Pest management programs should be planned and coordinated using the most effective and humane control techniques available. Strategies for increasing public awareness and the need to consider animal welfare issues in the context of the costs and benefits of control are integral parts of successful pest management The use of the self-mustering trap yard as a feral goat control technique has a number of environmental, economic and social advantages. It is a technique that has a good working history of effective use in the management of livestock enterprises as well as in the control of feral spec ies. However, apart from the general provisions of the various State prevention of cruelty to animals legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the operation of self-mustering trap yards for the capture of either livestock or feral species. A clearly defined animal welfare issue has been identified in relation to the trapping of off-target wildlife species at trap-yards. The engineering and management strategies currently adopted to mitigate this issue are effective to a limited degree but the ideal situation would be if no wildlife species were trapped or if trapped animals could release themselves without the need for daily human intervention.


INTRODUCTION The domestic goat (Capra hircus) was introduced to the Australian continent and some of its offshore islands, by European settlers to provide food, fibre and transport. During the history of European settlement there have been many importations of domesticated goats of a number of types including the various dairy breeds, fibre breeds and more recently meat breeds. The feral goat population that has subsequently developed in parts of Australia over time is derived from domestic goats that escaped from captivity because of inadequate husbandry techniques or that were deliberately released to provide emergency rations or when land was abandoned during drought. Characteristics of the species - such as high fecundity and fertility, sociability and herding instinct, wide dietary capabilities and non-specialised habitat requirements - that lead to it being domesticated originally and then reinforced by selective breeding over time, were all useful attributes for free-ranging populations to develop. Domestic goats are found throughout the world but feral goat populations are largely restricted to Australia, New Zealand (Parkes 1990) and a number of offshore and oceanic islands (for example Campbell and Rudge 1984, Parkes 1984a, Parkes 1984b). Populations of feral goats usually only develop where large predators such as canids and felids are absent or uncommon, where there are large tracts of suitable habitat - generally without herbivores with the same habits - and where there is little social, cultural or economic value in people keeping them under intensive management (Rudge 1984). Parkes et al. (1996) indicate that populations of feral goats are now found in every state and territory of Australia with the exception of the Northern Territory and, in addition, are also found on a number of offshore islands and territories. Isolated populations of feral goats are found in the temperate agricultural areas of eastern, southeastern, southern and southwestern Australia where they are restricted to areas of remnant native vegetation on non-arable soils. These populations are usually present in low numbers overall but may occur in high densities. However, the largest and most persistent populations of feral goats are found in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. Published estimates of numbers and densities of feral goats throughout their known range in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland are now approximately 10 years old (Parkes et al. 1996) and were collected during aerial surveys to estimate numbers of kangaroos. This survey information indicates that, while the area in which goats were observed increased from just under 1 million square kilometres in 1982 to just over 1.2 million square kilometres in 1993, the number of feral goats within that range rose from an estimated 720,000 in 1982 to an estimated 2.6 million in 1993. During this period, the density of goats in the surveyed range increased from approximately 0.75 goats per square kilometre to approximately 2.2 goats per square kilometre.


These population estimates are probably quite conservative or an under estimate of the real situation despite the data being corrected for visibility bias. Potential sources of bias in aerial surveys are that only the animals that are seen are counted and only a percentage of the total environment is surveyed. Another confounding factor is the patchiness of feral goat distribution throughout the range. This patchiness is indicated in a number of studies where the distribution and abundance of feral goats in specific areas such as individual pastoral properties or Landcare units were assessed, for example 0.6-16.6 goats/km2 (Casburn et al. 1996), 17-26 goats/km2 (Landsberg & Stol 1996), 5-24 goats/km2 (Pople et al. 1996), 1.5-4.5 goats/km2 (Edwards et al. 1997), 0.5-1.7 goats/km2 (Pearce et al. 1998) and 1-24 goats/km2 (Thompson et al. 2002). The apparent increase in the distribution and abundance of the feral goat in the arid and semi-arid rangelands during the period 1982-93 indicated by the results of aerial surveys occurred despite a significant off-take of animals due to various control and harvest programs over the same time period. Ramsay (1994), citing numbers provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, indicated that in this same period over 67,320 tonnes of goat meat and 647,000 live goats were exported from Australia. With the farmed goat meat industry in its development phase during this period it can be assumed that most, if not all, of these exports were of feral goats. In addition, many thousands more were harvested for meat products within Australia, or were captured and domesticated for goat fibre and meat enterprises in Australia or were destroyed and left in the field. The levels of off-take during the period 1982-93 retarded but did not prevent an increase in the feral goat herd in Australia (Parkes et al. 1996). The biological traits that lead to goats being domesticated in pre-historic times have meant that goats are an ideally suited species for the Australian environment and appear well able to cope with the current levels of control and harvest. In undisturbed populations the recruitment rate (births and immigration) is higher than the losses (deaths and emigration) and this also appears to be true of many harvested populations. These biological characteristics are summarised from Parkes et al. (1996) below.

• Breeding season: dependent on available feed. In readily available, can breed year round but usually with a birth peak that coincides with optimum food availability. If conditions are suitable it is possible for females to have 2 litters a year.

• Population dynamics: females can become pregnant in their first year and can become pregnant again soon after giving birth as lactation does not inhibit oestrus, multiple births are common, greatest fecundity is in mature females, generally equal numbers of male and female kids are born but population is generally female biased in older cohorts, mortality rates of kids are variable but are less than 50%, low mortality in adult animals.

• Diet: generalist herbivores, utilise browse, herbs and grass depending on availability, quality and palatability. Capable of consuming a wide range of available vegetation but preferentially select highest quality available.

• Sociability: movements within non-exclusive home ranges centred on available water and food, home ranges smaller where resources readily available increasing in size as resources become limiting except in the driest conditions because of the


animals need for frequent watering. Usual social group is breeding females with previous offspring, mixed aged male flocks separate but overlapping with female flocks during breeding season.

These characteristics mean that most populations of feral goats have a high potential to rapidly increase their numbers and reach (or exceed) the ecological carrying capacity of the area in which they are located. This can often happen even when the population is subjected to some intensity of harvest or control. Henzell, (unpublished data) and Mahood (1985) indicated that 35% and 42% respectively of their study populations would need to be killed or removed annually to maintain numbers at original levels and significantly higher levels of off-take would be required annually to reduce population numbers. The very act of harvesting or controlling the feral goat population in an area may provide the environmental conditions in a step-by-step process whereby the feral goat population quickly recovers numbers. The removal of animals from the population, which are often from mixed aged male flocks or immature non-breeding females, means there are more resources available for breeding females. This increases nutrition during pregnancy and lactation leading to a higher incidence of multiple births and a greater survival of kids. With resource availability still relatively high due to the initial harvest, breeding females can become pregnant again. There are a number of possible explanations as to why the distribution and abundance of feral goats throughout Australia has appeared to rapidly increase in the latter half of the 20th century.

• Provision of water points throughout the arid and semi-arid rangelands to enhance the development of extensive livestock grazing enterprises. Goats, like the other introduced large herbivores that are farmed in these areas, require ready access to water.

• Control of predators such as the Dingo and the Fox by such means as the construction and maintenance of the Dingo Fence around the approximate northern edge of the sheep grazing country and the active shooting, 1080 poisoning and trapping campaigns carried out on both sides of the Dingo Fence but in particular on the ‘inside’.

• A growing understanding of the environmental characteristics of the arid and semi-arid rangelands and the need to actively manage total grazing pressure of these environments. As livestock numbers are manipulated by land managers due to seasonal abundance or drought it can reduce competitive pressures on the less well managed feral goats allowing them to increase. Due to past grazing practices and changed fire regimes in some of these regions the habitat has become less suitable for managed livestock and more suited to feral goats.

• Variable effort in controlling or harvesting feral goats. The potential rate of increase in feral goat populations is large and a significant number of animals within that population need to be removed each year to prevent it increasing. If control is carried out on an ad hoc basis or does not reduce the population significantly due to financial, social or physical constraints then the population numbers will quickly recover to, or surpass, previous levels.


• The development of more efficient survey techniques. The use of fixed winged aircraft to conduct aerial surveys rapidly over the arid and semi-arid rangelands has enabled larger areas to be more thoroughly searched with greater efficiency. The use of technologies such as GPS and various mathematical formulae to remove observer bias and calculate population estimates has aided in the year-on-year repetition of the surveys.

• The level of interest in the distribution and abundance of feral goats may have increased because of the perceived greater financial returns to landholders in recent times and the realisation of competition with farmed livestock and reported environmental impacts may have lead to a greater reporting rate.

The place of the feral goat in the Australian environment has changed significantly over time. In the period immediately following European settlement the goat was considered a valuable asset on a property due to food, fibre and transport benefits it provided. This was followed by a long period until around the 1970’s when the goat and any costs and benefits associated with it, was largely ignored by the community (sporadic harvesting had occurred since the 1950’s (Elliot and Woodford 1995) ). In more recent times the interest in feral goats has risen due to the development of important commercial goat enterprises within Australia that took advantage of the feral goat population to build up numbers as well as a developing understanding of the impact of feral goats in several environmental issues (Environment Australia 1999). The feral goat’s status in the Australian environment is a complex issue and varies from locality to locality and land use types and may also vary over time at the same locality or land use type. In most of its range it is a declared pest species under various state government legislations and should be destroyed. However, the provisions of these pieces of legislation are rarely enforced and in practice management ranges from attempts at complete eradication such as on National Parks or in key habitats (eg de Preu and Pearce 2002), some level of population management (eg Pearce et al. 1998, Casburn et al. 1999, Thompson et al. 1999) to attempts to domesticate and improve feral goat herds as an alternate or supplemental farming enterprise (eg Fletcher 1995, Turner 2003). Throughout much of the range of the feral goat the level of management is based on economic considerations rather than environmental considerations. Most land managers do some feral goat control at some stage (Elliot and Woodford 1995) and the returns gained from such control can form a significant component of a landholders’ annual income. If the prices paid for feral goats are relatively high and prices for domestic livestock are relatively low and the effort required to harvest feral goats is minimal or not a constraint then more goats tend to be removed from a management unit until such time as the prices drop and or the effort required to control goats increases. The widespread distribution, large population numbers, ability to rapidly increase in numbers, dietary preferences and difficulty to manage combined with the fragile nature of much of the country in which they are found has meant that competition and land degradation by feral goats is threatening some ecological communities and certain native species. These reasons led to ‘Competition and land degradation from feral goats’ being


identified as a Key Threatening Process under Schedule 3 of the Commonwealth’s former Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (now listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). In addition to impacts on the natural environment the feral goat is also a competitor to managed livestock enterprises for forage and water, particularly in drier times. The identification and listing of this Key Threatening Process requires the preparation and implementation of a threat abatement plan to nationally coordinate management of the impact of competition and land degradation by feral goats. The Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats (Environment Australia, 1999) identifies 10 objectives and a number of actions to promote the recovery of endangered or vulnerable native species and communities, and to prevent further species and communities becoming endangered by reducing competition and land degradation caused by feral goats to non-threatening levels. The contents of this report are linked to the Threat Abatement Plan’s (TAP) Objective 6 and its associated actions which are to ‘ improve the effectiveness and humaneness of feral goat control methods’. Bomford and O’Brien (1995) identified six criteria for deciding whether eradication of a feral pest species such as the goat is technically possible and preferable to ongoing control as a management option. The criteria are:

1. Rate of removal exceeds rate of increase at all population densities, 2. Immigration is zero, 3. All reproductive animals must be at risk, 4. Animals can be detected at low densities, 5. Discounted benefit-cost analysis favours eradication over control, and 6. Suitable socio-political environment.

The conclusion that Bomford and O’Brien reached was, as they were unable to satisfy any of the six criteria, national eradication of the feral goat population was neither feasible nor desirable. Eradication may only be possible for small, isolated populations or localised regions and has been achieved on a number of islands (Parkes et al. 1996). Several other management strategies for feral pest species have been identified that may be adopted when considering controlling feral goat populations in Australia (Braysher 1993, Parkes et al. 1996). These strategies are:

1. Localised control, where a small population may be eradicated and then excluded from reinvasion by the construction of a goat proof barrier fence,

2. Strategic control, where a high proportion of the original population is initially removed, followed up by periodic maintenance control to slow or prevent recovery,


3. Sporadic or crisis control, where populations are only controlled when in such numbers as to be causing obvious environmental or economic damage and not followed up,

4. Commercial control, where a population is harvested or hunted on a purely commercial basis until it becomes uneconomic to carry out further control,

5. No control, where a population is allowed to reach an environmental equilibrium regardless of whether that point causes economic or environmental damage.

A number of specific control techniques have been developed for the management of feral goat populations. These methodologies may have a role to play individually or in combination with which ever of the management strategies mentioned above is adopted. Table 1 summarises the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of technique. This report is concerned with one of the techniques identified in Table 1 - the trapping of feral goats at water -points. It provides a review of the information available from a number of trials of this technology in different parts of the feral goats’ range as well as information from discussions with relevant experts and information from other sources. This technique seeks to take advantage of the goats need to access free water, particularly during dry times and the limited way that natural and artificial water-points are distributed throughout the feral goats range in the arid and semi-arid rangelands, where it is most effective. There is a long history of trapping livestock at water-points in Australia and overseas and the development of this technique has utilised that exper ience. In simple terms, trap designs consist of a goat proof fence around the water-point with one of several types of one-way entrance built in which are closed when the trap is set for captures. The particular advantages of this technique are that it is low technology and relatively inexpensive, the infrastructure needed can be used for other livestock enterprises and it provides the option of the humane slaughter of the captured goats or their sale off-property to recoup some of the construction and maintenance costs. The structure of this report is broken into 5 components or items each discussed individually within the body of the report. The items are: Item 1. The effectiveness of permanent traps placed on water sources as a means of capturing feral goats, and the effects these traps have on domestic livestock. Item 2. The most effective trap designs and the relative cost effectiveness of individual trap designs as a means of capturing feral goats and protecting local populations of endangered species. Item 3. Feral goat behaviour at traps and potential weak points in designs that may compromise their effectiveness. Item 4. Feral goat behaviour at traps on water sources and guidelines on their usage that will ensure that animal welfare is not compromised.


Item 5. Information on management options for humane disposal of feral goats that are trapped.


Table 1: A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of various goat control techniques (adapted from Parkes et al. (1996). Control technique Advantages Disadvantages Exclusion • Simple to adopt • Too late in most favoured

habitats • May need legislative power • Expensive to implement

Mustering • Sale of goats can offset costs of muster

• Can be done by landowners

• Only economic and efficient at high densities

• Animal welfare issues • Relatively ineffective in rugged

terrain Trapping • Sale of goats can offset costs of

infrastructure • Can be done by landowners • Infrastructure is multi-use • Very high proportion of

population is potentially caught

• Most effective in dry times, need to protect all waters

• Animal welfare issues • Need to set and monitor traps

Ground shooting • Proven method • Target individual goats

• Skilled hunters needed and labour intensive

• Animal welfare issues Aerial shooting • Useful in rough terrain

• Can cover large areas • Skilled marksmen and pilots

needed • Public perception issues • Can be expensive

Judas goat • For scattered or wary goats • Useful in eradication plans

• Needs expensive equipment and skilled operators

Poisoning • All target animals at risk • Animal welfare issues • Risks to off-target species • Many toxins illegal for use

Habitat manipulation • May help control other pests and save water

• May aid other control methods

• Ineffective if used on own

Fencing (electric or fabricated)

• Can limit dispersal • Break up large areas into

manageable units • May aid other control methods

• Effective fencing expensive • Eventually will be breached • Fabricated ringlock is easily

damaged and impacts on movements of wildlife species

• Electric fencing requires animals to be trained to system and untrained animals will pass through

Biological control • Once developed could be cheap • Environmentally safer than some

other control methods • Possible animal welfare benefits

• Development costs • No suitable agents available

(except Dingoes) • Possible animal welfare issues • May lose efficacy over time • Potential impacts on domestic

goat herd


ITEM 1. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PERMANENT TRAPS PLACED ON WATER SOURCES AS A MEANS OF CAPTURING FERAL GOATS AND THE EFFECTS THESE TRAPS HAVE ON DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK. Summary: The requirement by feral goats for free water, especially during dry times, is a behaviour that has been exploited throughout the arid and semi-arid rangelands portion of the feral goats’ known range. In these environmental conditions, the use of correct ly built and correctly operated permanent traps placed on water sources has proven to be very effective in capturing feral goats. The successful operation of permanent trap-yards at water points to catch feral goats requires a commitment of time and resources on behalf of the land manager and there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the use of this goat control technique compared with other goat control techniques The advantages in adopting this goat control technique continue to accrue throughout the life of the trap-yards while the disadvantages can be effectively managed and incorporated into the daily routines of the particular land management unit. There is a long history of trapping domestic livestock species at water-points in Australia and overseas. In Australia, the development and refinement of self -mustering as a livestock management technique primarily occurred on the extensive northern cattle grazing properties (Cheffins 1988) and was more recently adapted to sheep (O’Dempsey 1993) and domestic goat (Fletcher 1995, Pearce et al. 1998, Underwood 2002) grazing enterprises. A supplementary benefit of the development and adoption of this livestock management technique has been the capture of feral goats sharing the water-point providing a economic, environmental and social dividend to land managers at little additional cost. The technique seeks to take advantage of an animals need to readily access free water, particularly during dry times and the limited way that natural and artificial water-points are distributed within arid and semi-arid rangelands where the technique is most effective. While this technique has some application in the more temperate environments, particularly where the trap-yard is ‘baited’ with mineral supplement licks, it has been less effective in those environments where water is more readily available. The self-mustering technique involves confining the target animals, whether they are livestock or feral goats, to a yard that encloses either a natural or artificial water-point and its effectiveness depends on four critical principles (Connelly et al. 2000).

1. The target animals are dependent on water, 2. There are no alternative sources of water, 3. The infrastructure is compatible with the target animals, and 4. Target animals are familiar with the system (i.e. adequate training is provided).


The effective utilisation of the self-mustering trap-yards technique should begin before the construction of new yards or the modification of existing yards and passes through several phases as indicated in Table 2. Table 2: Stages in development of effective self-mustering trap-yards. Development stage Activities and considerations Planning/pre-construction • Selection of which water points are to be used (may

depend on available money and resources, topography, environmental conditions, management conditions).

• Restriction of access to alternate water sources by fencing (eg fence off earth tanks or turkeys nests and pipe water to trough in yard, fence off bore drains, fence off natural waters).

• Choice of trap type (may depend on available money and resources, livestock management considerations).

• Prepare yard plan (design influenced by trap type chosen, available money and resources, livestock and property management considerations such as paddock size, herd size, livestock mix, yards for multi-use livestock management apart from mustering).

• Develop operational plan (to be part of ongoing livestock and property management strategies or for non-strategic use, fate of trapped feral animals and wildlife).

Construction • Site preparation and mark out yards using yard plan, assemble necessary materials.

• Staged construction of yards so that livestock, feral animals and wildlife can develop familiarity with the site and are not presented with a finished yard and no where else to water.

• Yards and other infrastructure constructed to highest standards (see Item 2).

Operation • Suitable period of training to enable all animals using the water to develop a familiarity and routine with the trap-yard.

• Use of operational plan to manage animal welfare issues (eg not trapping during lambing or calving, open traps at night to allow wildlife species free access to water).

Post catch • Provision of adequate food, water and shelter for trapped animals or remove to holding paddocks after capture for short periods to build up mobs.

• Fate of trapped feral animals and wildlife (eg wildlife immediately released on site, injured wildlife or feral animals immediately humanely destroyed on site, feral animals humanely truc ked away from site for destruction or live-sale to abattoirs).


In trial programs conducted throughout Australia on different land systems and with different livestock enterprises, comments from land managers regarding the use of self-mustering trap-yards indicate that if they are constructed and operated professionally there should be little disruption to normal livestock management on any pastoral property using them. Self -mustering has been shown to significantly reduce mustering costs, significantly reduce labour costs, to reduce stress on livestock and to improve livestock and pasture management practices. It has also been shown to reduce stress on and improve safety for workers, to significantly improve mustering efficiency and the infrastructure also improves property values (Cheffins 1988, O’Dempsey 1993, Pearce et al. 1998, Connelly et al. 2000, Underwood 2002). Casburn et al. (1999) report from a mark-recapture trial using ewes in western New South Wales that they obtained a clean muster in 4 days using self-mustering trap-yards. They suggest that this technique is still useful in winter if stock is trained to use the trap-yards for their water. Pearce (unpublished data) observed goats walking through free standing water to access drinking water in a trough located in a trap-yard because of the routine that they had developed from being trained to drink there. Other land manager comment indicates that a clean muster is obtainable in less time in drier times than in wetter periods (O’Dempsey 1993). Self-mustering trap-yards are considered on the basis of the trapping mechanism built in to it. Yards incorporating two-way spear gates (Pearce et al. 1998, Casburn et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000, Underwood 2002) are the most sophisticated of the trap yard designs to build and operate. Hinged gates (Turner pers comm.) and jump-down ramps (Henzell, 1984) are simpler designs so are less expensive to erect and operate but may also be less effective in catching animals and less flexible in multi-species situations. Designs, specifications and cost of the various trap yard set-ups are discussed in Item 2. The requirement by feral goats for free water, especially during dry times, is a behaviour that has been exploited throughout the arid and semi-arid rangelands portion of the feral goats’ known range in Australia. In these particular environmental conditions, the use of correctly built and correctly operated permanent traps placed on water sources has proven to be very effective in capturing feral goats when utilised in the correct manner (Parkes et al. 1996). This technique has a wide application in the rangelands where this method of feral goat control has been used on a range of land management systems from pastoral properties stocking sheep and/or cattle and/or domestic goats to conservation reserves and in environments ranging from flat open shrub land and mallee ecosystems to steep arid shrub lands (Fletcher 1995, Parkes et al. 1996, Pearce et al. 1998, Casburn et al. 1999, Thompson et al. 1999, de Preu and Pearce 2002). The successful operation of permanent trap yards at water points to catch feral goats requires a commitment of time and resources on behalf of the land manager and there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the use of this goat control technique compared with other goat control techniques that were shown in Table 1.


The advantages are: • Selling live trapped goats can offset costs of erecting and maintaining traps, • It is low technology and relatively inexpensive with the skills and equipment

needed to construct and maintain traps generally available onsite, • A very high proportion of the resident feral goat population is susceptible to

capture, • On pastoral properties, traps and associated infrastructure have important multi-

use capabilities where they can also be used to economically muster domesticated livestock throughout the year for various property management purposes,

• It provides the option of the humane destruction of the captured goats on property or their sale off-property to recoup some of the construction and maintenance costs,

The disadvantages are:

• Need to train animals (domestic, feral and wildlife) to the use of trap yards, • Most effective in dry conditions and largely ineffective if water readily available

outside trap, • May need to temporarily or permanently fence off natural waters to force animals

to trough in yard with potential impacts on wildlife, • Need to check trap daily once set and potential animal welfare issues involved

with removing trapped feral goats and wildlife species, • Wool clip contamination issues to be managed if using same trapping and

transportation infrastructure for both sheep and goats. The advantages in adopting this goat control technique continue to accrue throughout the life of the trap yards while the disadvantages can be effectively managed and planned for and incorporated into the daily routines of the particular land management unit. The results of the effectiveness of selected published goat trapping trials conducted throughout Australia are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Effectiveness of selected goat trapping trials throughout Australia. Site Density

(km2) Popn. Estimate

No.caught (%)

Trapped (Days)

Cost/goat Avg ($)

Return/goat Avg ($)

WA 1

Nov 1996 Nov 1997

1.7 0.7

1091 454

880 (81) 730 (161)

4 3

15 15

SW QLD2

Jul 1995 Feb 1996 Feb 1996 Oct 1996 Nov 1996

6-20 6-20 10-24 10-24 6-20

17226 12023 25019 14506 7278

894 (5) 1130 (9) 1105 (4) 226 (2) 646 (9)

2 4 5 3 2

2.24 2.24 1.96 1.96 2.24

12 15 15 15 15

NSW3

Aug 1995 1.7

913

379 (42)

7

11.37

10

1 Pearce et al. 1998 2 Thompson et al. 1999 3 Casburn et al. 1999


The figures in this table are somewhat limited because, apart from the series of data from the work in southwest Queensland, the information is from once off trials. However these figures do raise a number of important points when considering a trapping program.

• The demonstrated effectiveness of this control technique in removing feral goats from a known population at both high and low density estimates,

• At high densities more animals will generally be caught and removed than at low densities but it is dangerous to assume that removing large numbers equates to removing a significant proportion of the total population,

• The need to have a district or regional perspective on the size of the population and the control effort needed as population estimates can vary considerably from the actual numbers present and because of the mobility of the animal,

• The need to implement trapping as a control technique throughout the year or combined with other control techniques such as mustering or aerial shooting, especially in high density populations because of the goats high potential rate of increase,

• The larger the number of goats removed using this control technique the lower the costs of control per animal and the higher the returns from possible sales increasing profit for reinvestment.

Recommendations: Trapping livestock species (including domestic and feral goats) at water-points in Australia and overseas is a well-developed, well-researched and effective management technique. Several recent publications provide clear, concise and practical information regarding this technique including advantages and disadvantages, construction tips, technical drawings and photographs and materials lists. These publications are: Connelly, P., Horrocks, D., Pahl, L., and Warmin, K. (2000). Cost-effective and multipurpose self-mustering enclosures for stock. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Brisbane., and Underwood, C. (2002) Total grazing management field guide - self-mustering systems for cattle, sheep and goats. Bulletin No. 4547. Department of Agriculture Western Australia. Recommendation 1.1 It is recommended that Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage begin negotiations with the publishers of these two booklets so that they may be made more widely distributed individually or preferably, the possibility of combining the information from both publications into the one booklet. This booklet should be made available to pest animal control officers, Landcare groups, conservation agencies and anyone seeking funding from the Natural Heritage Trust for goat control work.


ITEM 2. THE MOST EFFECTIVE TRAP DESIGNS AND THE RELATIVE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUAL TRAP DESIGNS AS A MEANS OF CAPTURING FERAL GOATS AND PROTECTING LOCAL POPULATIONS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES. Summary: The cost of trapping feral goats has two components: those associated with planning, constructing and maintaining the trap and other infrastructure and the costs of operating the trap. Construction costs vary from location to location depending on the size, shape and sophistication of the trap built, the materials used and the amount and type of labour needed. Operational costs also vary from site to site depending on the amount of use, the type of livestock using it and the number of feral goats caught and sold off property. The quality of the planning, construction work and materials used are the most important factors in developing a flexible, effective trap -yard system being used at its’ full potential. The various self-mustering trap yards in use around Australia provide the greatest benefits and returns in situations such as pastoral properties where livestock is managed and is regularly mustered for management purposes and where water points are formalised. The major problem encountered in the operation of an effective self-mustering trap-yard is the potential to capture non-livestock wildlife species and the impact this may have on an animals’ welfare. An extensive range of published findings from research, trials and ongoing operation of various types of self -mustering yards throughout Australia is currently available regarding their design, costs and effectiveness with the bulk of this work being produced by various state government departments in conjunction with livestock producers. The initial work with developing self-mustering trap yards had a livestock management emphasis (eg Cheffins 1988 and O’Dempsey 1993) but more recent work has looked at adapting this technology to derive environmental as well as agricultural benefits (Pearce et al.1998, Casburn et al.1999, Connelly et al.2000, Underwood 2002). The most sophisticated of the self-mustering trap yard designs to build and operate are those based on a set of one -way ‘spear gates’. Several other self-mustering trap yard designs such as hinged gates (Turner pers comm.) and jump down ramps (Niven 1980a, Henzell 1984) have been used in the past as simpler and less expensive designs to erect and operate but may also be less effective in catching goats. A summary of each of these 3 self-mustering trap yard designs is provided below and a diagram of the basic configuration is shown in Figures 1a to 1c. 1. Jump down ramps (see Plate 3, Appendix 1): This design is simple and easy to

build. The trap consists of mesh fencing enclosing the water point with gates either side of a ramp at one end. When the trap is not set animals establish a pattern of walking through the gates on either side of the ramp. This encourages them to use the ramp when the gates are closed and the trap is set. No period of training is utilised. This design is not suitable for cattle or sheep in poor condition so is best operated in areas free of livestock such as conservation reserves or when livestock are out of the


paddock. This design will not catch every animal as timid or small individuals may be reluctant to use the ramp. Daily checking is necessary to remove goats and off-target wildlife species. Loading pens and holding yards can be incorporated into design.

2. Hinged gates (see Plate 4, Appendix 1): This design is simple and easy to build. The

trap consists of mesh fencing enclosing the water point with a single hinged gate and fixed panel in one side and an exit gate in another side to avoid milling at the entry. When the trap is not set animals establish a pattern of walking through the entry and exit gates. A training period is necessary with the gap between the hinged gate and the fixed panel gradually being closed until the spout it forms is too narrow for an animal to force its way out. The trap is set when the spout is at the narrowest gap necessary and the exit gate is closed. This design is better suited to the similarly sized animals such as sheep and goats rather than cattle, sheep and/or goats as the gap needed for large steers and bullocks is large enough for smaller animals to force their way back up it when trap is set. This design will not catch every animal as timid individuals or goats with large horns are reluctant to use the narrow spout especially if they cannot see the water. Daily checking is necessary to remove goats and off-target wildlife species. Loading pens and holding yards can be added into the design.

3. One-way ‘spear gates’ (see Plate 5, Appendix 1): This design is a little more

complex than the above two designs but the technology is still relatively simple and easy to build. The trap consists of fencing enclosing the water point with a permanently set ‘in’ gate in one side and a permanently set ‘out’ gate in another side to avoid milling at the in gate. The ‘spears’ are designed and placed in the gates in such a way that animals can easily force their way in a gate or out a gate but not in and out the same gate. A period of training is necessary to accustom animals to using the gates with the spears removed and then gradually replaced so that when the trap is not set animals establish a pattern of walking through the entry and exit gates. The trap is set when the exit gate is closed. This design is easily adapted to suit cattle, sheep and goats. Once trained this design should catch every animal as timid or small animals can enter the trap-yard by pushing through the spears. Daily checking is necessary to remove trapped animals and off-target wildlife species. Loading pens and holding yards can be incorporated into this design.

The cost associated with trapping feral goats has two components: the costs associated with planning, constructing and maintaining the trap and associated infrastructure and the actual costs of operating the trap (such as wages and transport costs) when eventually in use. Construction costs vary from location to location depending on the size, shape and sophistication of the trap built, the materials used in construction, the amount of labour needed and whether labour is contracted in for the job. After the initial investment the annual maintenance and repair costs to the trap-yard throughout its working life should be small (2-3% of construction cost per annum, Thompson et al. 1999) but depends on the quality of construction and materials used initially, amount of use it receives and the type of livestock using it. Operational costs will also vary from site to site depending on the amount of use it receives and the number of feral goats caught and sold off property.


Cheffins (1988) found that the quality of the planning, construction work and materials used were the most important factors in developing a flexible, effective trap-yard system being used at its’ full potential, saving time and money throughout its working life. The various self-mustering trap yards in use around Australia provide the greatest benefits and returns in situations such as pastoral properties where livestock is managed and is regularly mustered for management purposes and where water points are formalised. Considerable savings have been proven can be made by an enterprise in greatly reduced annual livestock mustering costs while additional income can be obtained from the possible sale of live feral goats that can subsidise the costs of construction and operation of the trap yards. In this way, the costs of constructing and operating self-mustering trap yards can be shared across all animal enterprises on property. Depending on the prices received, one or two catches of feral goats should cover the cost of initial construction as well as ongoing operational costs. Additional costs are incurred during construction - but greater efficiencies and ongoing savings are made - if holding pens, stock handling infrastructure and trucking yards are also incorporated into the design. The same yard set-up can be adapted for cattle, sheep or goats with minor adjustments (O’Dempsey 1993, Casburn et al 1999, Thompson et al 1999, Connelly et al 2000). A summary of the costs associated with the construction of examples of self-mustering trap yards in use around Australia is provided in Table 4. Designs and specifications for some examples of each are included as Appendix 1. Suppliers of prefabricated spear gates are available in most states and are listed in Cheffins, 1988, Pearce et al. 1998 and Underwood 2002. Alternatively, landholders or metal workers could use the detailed technical drawings provided in Cheffins, 1988, Pearce et al. 1998 Casburn et al. 1999, Connelly et al.2000 and Underwood 2002 to manufacture spear gates on site. It is difficult to compare these costs from site to site because some are for the gate assembly only while others are total construction costs for the entire trap yard with or without labour costs, however, they do show that for around $2,000 up to $5,000 a substantial and effective new self-mustering trap yard can be constructed. Modification of an existing yard at a water point to become a self-mustering trap yard would cost less than these figures and many land managers have taken this option. The breakdown of construction costs shown in Appendix 1 indicate that even where similar materials are used construction costs vary from location to location depending on the size and shape of the trap built, the quality and amount of materials used in the construction and the amount of labour needed.


Table 4: A summary of the costs associated with the construction of examples of self-mustering trap-yards in use around Australia. (Dollar values at time of construction only). Site Trap type Usage Costs ($) Comments SA1 Jump-down ramp Goats only 300 Effective and economic. 4 man-days to

build each trap. Qld2 Two-way hinged

gate Quiet cattle 2,080 Not for goats. Effective with quiet cattle.

1.5 man days to build Qld3 Bettini gate

Charleville gate Spring Hill spear Cattle/sheep gate

Sheep/goat Sheep/goat Stock and goats Stock and goats

120 100 260 200

Gate only, simple, yard extra. Gate only, simple, yard extra. Gate only, simple, yard extra Modified cattle gate suitable for sheep and goats. Yard extra cost.

WA4 Boolathana gate Sheep/goat 1,004 1,890 3,334

1 paddock system, +30 h. labour 2 paddock system, +60 h. labour 4 paddock system, +90 h. labour

Qld5 Bettini gate Stock and goats 2,686 Avg cost, range of $2,000-$5,000, materials and labour.

Qld6 Cattle/sheep gate Charleville gate Bettini gate Cattle/sheep gate Charleville gate

Stock and goats Sheep/goat Sheep/goat Sheep/goat Sheep/goat

3,030 1,736 1,721 1,671 1,907

Avg cost, range of $2,572-3,567, electric fence, materials only. Plain wire yard, materials only. Avg cost, range of $1,046-2,750, ringlock fence, materials only. Avg cost, range of $1,235-2,281, ringlock fence, materials only. Avg cost, range of $1,202-2,784, ringlock fence, materials only.

1. Henzell, 1984 2. Cheffins, 1988 3. O’Dempsey, 1993 4. Pearce et al. 1998 and Underwood 2002 5.Thompson et al. 1999 6.Casburn et al. 1999 Under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 expenditure on the prevention and treatment of land degradation is eligible for a rebate or deduction. The actions are for preventing or limiting or reclaiming land degradation by erecting a fence to exclude such animals as feral goats from an area or by eradicating or exterminating pest animals such as feral goats from the land (Environment Australia, 1999). It would be inadvisable to undertake such works just for a possible taxation benefit but in consultation with financial advisors it is possible that it may provide an additional incentive to consider the development of a strategic goat management plan and the construction of self -mustering trap-yards. Table 4 and Appendix 1 indicate self -mustering trap-yards and the gates used on them have been built from many materials depending on what was at hand, the type of animal being trapped and the conditions in which the trap was built. Yards have been constructed out of plain wire, electric fencing, timber railings and different mesh types and gates have been built from RHS steel, steel piping and pickets and timber poles. Regardless of the materials used in construction, the primary outcome is to have a stock-proof yard in which animals can be worked in a safe and humane manner.


Yards constructed from plain wire or electric fencing have found to be largely ineffective in completely preventing feral goats from entering fenced-off protected water-points or in confining them in self-mustering trap yards once trapped. When pressured by the need to drink and not provided with an alternative source or when pressured by handling in a yard, goats can force their way through these fence types even if they have had some training to electric fencing (Fletcher 1995, Casburn et al. 1999, Henzell pers. com., Turner pers. com.). The trial work shown in Table 4 and Appendix 1, combined with the practical knowledge of land managers who use self-mustering trap yards, indicate that the most effective and economic fencing material used in yards is ringlock or hingelock mesh combined with one-way spear gates (see Plate 1). The most commonly used trap fence configuration is of prefabricated 8/90/15 hingelock with plain wires top and bottom to tie the hinged panels together. This is a fence that is 90cm high, has 8 horizontal wires and a gap of 15cm between vertical wires. It may also be topped with one or two plain wires and a strip of shade cloth material to increase the height of the fence. It is considered that these configurations provide greater security and require less maintenance than the weldmesh types of fencing where the welded joint in the fence structure can break under the pressure of animals banging into them. In contrast, Pearce et al (1998) used prefabricated weldmesh fencing tied to pickets and reported no problems with broken welds or increased maintenance requirements for this type of fence material. Plate 1: An example of ringlock mesh fencing and one-way spear-gates in a self-mustering trap-yard (Connelly et al. 2000).


The size, shape and location of a self -mustering trap-yard is dependent on a number of factors, including: • Paddock size and size and composition of livestock herds using the paddocks (e.g.

cattle need more structurally substantial yards than sheep or goats, cattle require larger yards because of larger size and also larger personal space especially bulls and bullocks, breeding females need space to prevent offspring being trampled),

• Paddock layout in relation to siting of water-point (water-point in the middle of a paddock or at the corne r of several paddocks and servicing more than one paddock),

• Amount of use it is to receive (opportunistic capture of feral goats occasionally when it may not need to be as substantial or if part of the overall livestock management practices of a property which requires larger, more structurally substantial yards),

• Whether livestock handling facilities are to be incorporated into the design (the use of holding yards attached to the trap-yard will reduce pressure on the yard as livestock or feral goats can be tailed out into that yard as they are caught, incorporating livestock handling equipment such as races, loading ramps, pens, crutching areas etc reduces livestock handling costs and stresses and improves cost:benefit ratios in yard construction.

Self-mustering trap-yards have been built as squares, triangles and rounded yards. Square yards are the traditional standard in yard construction (see Figure 1a) but are more expensive to construct because of the need for strainer assemblies at each corner and corners are stress areas in the trap because trapped livestock and wildlife tend to accumulate there and damage each other or the yard or climb over the yard. Triangular shaped yards see (Figure 1b) have been used because they assist in the flow of stock through the yard (Cheffins 1988) but are also expensive to construct because of the need for strainer assemblies at each corner and because trapped livestock and wildlife tend to accumulate in the corners. Round yards (Figure 1c) provide advantages over the others in that the rounded shape provides the largest trap area for materials used, there are no corners to accumulate animals and the rounded shape aids in the flow of animals in, and through, the yard (Pearce et al. 1998 and Underwood 2002) although there are no obvious entry and exit points so training is essential.

Figure 1a: Square shaped self-mustering trap yard design (Cheffins 1988).


Figure 1b: Triangular shaped self -mustering trap yard design (Cheffins 1988). Figure 1c: Round shaped self-mustering trap yard design (Underwood 2002).


The major problem encountered in the operation of an effective self-mustering trap-yard is the potential to capture non-livestock wildlife species and the impact this may have on an animals’ welfare. The methods currently used to deal with the inadvertent trapping of off-target species of wildlife such as the larger Macropods and Emus are a combination of engineering and management strategies (Pearce et al. 1998, Connelly et al. 2000 and Underwood 2002). These include: • Training Macropods to use in and out spear gates to access water-point when

livestock and goats are being trained, • Small escape gates to allow Macropods to escape under the fence can be incorporated

into the construction phase of the trap, being located at intervals around the base of the fence (see Plate 2a and 2b). These need to be shut when the trap is set,

• Trap yard fence to be a maximum of 1.2m high and preferably 90cm high and topped with shade cloth type material to allow larger Macropods to escape over the top of the fence when trapped without catching their feet in the fence (see Plate 2a and 2b),

• Traps can be set for trapping only during daylight hours as livestock, goats and Emus tend to water during the day while Macropods tend to water in the evening or at night,

• As wildlife species, particularly Macropods, are prone to capture myopathy they should be released first if trapped in a yard before any other work is done in the yard. Animals should be gently pushed out of a gate in the yard to the outside paddock. Noise and sudden movements should be kept to a minimum and dogs should be kept out of the yard,

• It may be possible to provide a protected water source nearby that wildlife species could access but stock and feral goats could not.

A clearly defined animal welfare issue has been identified in relation to the trapping of off-target wildlife species at trap-yards. The engineering and management strategies currently adopted to mitigate this issue are effective to a limited degree but the ideal situation would be if no wildlife species were trapped or if trapped animals could release themselves without the need for daily human intervention. Feral goats have been identified as a confirmed or perceived threat to several endangered and vulnerable species listed under Schedule 1 of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992. Feral goats are also known to be seriously affecting the demographic status of a number of currently widespread tree species within the rangelands preventing the recruitment of juveniles by the ir grazing (Environment Australia 1999). The direct impacts that feral goats have on certain endangered and vulnerable plant species as well as more common species from their grazing has been relatively easy to demonstrate with some seedling recruitment following the reduction in goat numbers and grazing pressure on a landscape scale and better recruitment where goats have been totally excluded from smaller areas (Davies 1990, Davies 1995, Baulderstone et al 1999, de Preu and Pearce 2002).


Plate 2a: Fabricated self-mustering trap-yard with Kangaroo gate and shade cloth (Pearce et al. 1998).

Plate 2b: Fabricated self-mustering trap-yard with Kangaroo gate raised for training and lowered during trapping (Connelly et al. 2000).


The competitive effects of feral goats on endangered and vulnerable native herbivores have been harder to clearly demonstrate. There is a known dietary overlap between goats and at least one endangered mammal, the Yellow-footed Rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) (Dawson and Ellis 1979). It is highly likely that competition for food resources during periods of scarcity such as drought could seriously impact on wallaby numbers. Goat control in several locations containing populations of Yellow-footed Rock-wallaby have provided an increase in the resident wallaby numbers but these results have been obtained when predator control programs are also in place and seasonal conditions have been favourable (Sharp et al. 1999, de Preu and Pearce 2002). Recommendations: There have been few published studies conducted in Australia that have directly demonstrated the competitive effects of feral goats or determined whether current levels of commercial harvesting and control of feral goats are reducing agricultural and environmental damage. Much of this is based on anecdotal and observational information. Intuitively, it would seem obvious that annual off-takes as large as have been identified in this report must mitigate damage by reducing the numbers of feral goats or at least curbing their rate of increase. More information on the links between commercial harvesting and damage control is needed, particularly if government money is being sought for control programs. The current Aus tralian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage review examining conservation issues in relation to feral goats in Australia may provide information on this. Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that competition effects caused by goats be identified and measured through specific research programs and any positive environmental responses to their removal be identified, quantified and published. Recommendation 2.2 It is recommended that consideration be given to funding repeatable, complete, up to date and published estimates of feral goat numbers and densities at regional and landscape scale similar to that presently provided for Kangaroos. Recommendation 2.3 It is recommended that information on the availability of tax incentives for undertaking certain actions to prevent and treat land degradation be provided in the booklet recommended for publication in Recommendation 1.1


ITEM 3. FERAL GOAT BEHAVIOUR AT TRAPS AND POTENTIAL WEAK POINTS IN DESIGNS THAT MAY COMPROMISE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. Summary: There are a number of requirements that should be incorporated into an effective trap-yard system; maximising returns while limiting stress to trapped animals and their handlers and preventing escapes from the yards. If goats are trapped in a well-planned and well-constructed trap-yard they largely remain unstressed particularly after a period of training when most goats quickly become accustomed to the yards and gates. Training starts as the trap yard is being built allowing goats to gradually become used to the infrastructure as part of their normal drinking routine at that site. Observations of goat behaviour at or near self-mustering trap yards included in the information published on the effectiveness of such yards (Pearce et al. 1998, Casburn et al. 1999, Thompson et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000 and Underwood 2002) show that, after a period of training, goats quickly become accustomed to the yards and gates. Training starts as the trap yard is being built allowing goats to gradually become used to the infrastructure as part of their normal drinking routine and it should not be presented to them as a completed set up as they will be reluctant to utilise that point and may move to other water sources. If goats are trapped in a yard and the yard has been well planned and well constructed using suitable materials they largely remain unstressed even where several small flocks with their own bucks may be mixed together or where they may be confined with other livestock species or Macropods or Emus. Major causes of stress to trapped goats are the presence of humans and working dogs, severe over crowding and extended periods of confinement without food. Stresses lead to animal welfare issues (discussed more fully in Items 4 and 5) but also cause trapped goats to investigate the barrier for potential escape points and if the barrier is inadequate or poorly constructed then escapees are inevitable leading to trap-shy animals in the future or individuals coaching other goats in avoiding the trap yard. Regardless of the design chosen in the construction of the trap yard system as the most suitable in that circumstance, there are some common requirements that should be incorporated into an effective trap yard system to maximise returns while limiting stress to trapped animals and their handlers and preventing escapes from the yards. These are recommended regardless of whether the trap yard is used for purely livestock enterprises, a mix of livestock and feral goat enterprises or purely feral goat trapping. These recommendations have been combined from a number of research projects on the effectiveness of trap yards in trapping livestock and feral goats and from landholder comments contained within these reports (Cheffins 1988, O’Dempsey 1993, Pearce et al. 1998, Casburn et al. 1999, Thompson et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000 and Underwood 2002).


• The entire water point and any associated overflow, seepage or back waters should be contained entirely well within the trap-yard (or fenced off with stock proof fencing) to prevent any access to an alternate source of water at that site, forcing the animals to adopt the use of the trap yard as their source of water,

• The gates into the trap-yard should be situated on animal trails coming into the water point so that the gates are encountered on the usual path to water making it more likely the target species will quickly accept the use of the gates. If possible animals should be able to see the water from the gate as they enter. Anything that may baulk an animal as it is entering the gates should be considered, such as shadows from windmills. There should be at least one set of in and out gates, preferably located away from each other to prevent milling and blockages around the gates and the construction of a second set of gates may be necessary where bulls may be using the gates. The gates should be left permanently in the set position so that the only way animals can enter or leave the trap yard is via the appropriate gate with the exit gates closed only when a trapping session is conducted and the entry gates closed only when trapped animals are being worked in the yard. The gate design should be appropriate for the type of animal being trapped with a system that is perfectly adequate for sheep and goats being inadequate for cattle,

• The yards need to be constructed on solid ground that will not powder or erode so that posts and wires do not slacken or sag when hit and animals cannot dig under the fence. These problems will increase the maintenance requirements for an effective trap yard and increase operational costs. In high use areas of the trap yard, such as entry and exit gates, loading ramps and stock handling areas, the use of a concrete apron or some other hard surface will prevent the formation of hollows under the fence that may develop into escape points,

• Fencing materials used should be small enough that an animal cannot get its head caught in the fencing nor be large enough for it to be able to force its way through the barrier. The recommended fencing standard is 8/90/15 ringlock. Larger gauges may be cheaper to purchase but have been found to be false economy as animals can get their heads trapped and it is also more susceptible to damage from trapped livestock, goats, Macropods and Feral Pigs pushing the larger mesh apart and creating large enough holes for animals to escape,

• The trap yard should be built large enough to comfortably handle the work it is expected to do. Size of trap yard depends on the size of the water point, number and type of livestock using the water point (bulls and bullocks have a larger personal space than sheep or goats), whether livestock and feral animals will be in the trap yard together, the holding period for trapped animals in the trap yard and if they will be drafted out into holding paddocks nearby. An adequate size such as 50m x 50m will accommodate a large number of sheep and/or goats and reduces pressure on fences but building a trap yard too large for the expected use is unnecessarily expensive,

• When constructing the trap yard all corner posts, strainer posts and end assemblies should be anchored underground with concrete to avoid sagging when hit or leant on and located outside the yard so that goats can not climb the stays or assembly pieces. Steel star pickets should also be located on the outside of the fence to


avoid animals hitting them and hurting themselves and prevent the fence being damaged by having the effect of pushing the fence into the picket rather than pushing it away from the picket when hit. The use of rails on internal fences provides additional strength and rigidity,

• All logs, mounds and vegetation should be removed or left well away from the fence line to prevent goats climbing up and jumping out. However, there should be adequate shade shelter provided within the trap yard particularly if trapped animals are being held there and not drafted off to a holding yard,

• As goats have a tendency to go under or through fences, the bottom wire on the fence to which the prefabricated ringlock panel is tied should be as close to the ground as possible and be barbed to prevent animals lifting or going under the fence. This can also protect the fence integrity from the formation of hollows under it where animals escape out through. If any plain wires used in the construction of the trap yard are strained with ‘Gripples’ they can be more easily re-tensioned if they begin to sag,

• When constructing the trap yard sharp corners should be avoided, as they are the primary areas within the yard where goats and Macropods tend to get caught up. This is an animal welfare issue as smaller, weaker animals can be trampled underfoot but may also allow escapes as other animals climb over them and climb out. These areas of the fence get weakened more quickly than the rest of the fence as animals collide with the corners, so if they are unavoidable in the design they should be reinforced. This is a particular advantage of the rounded yard designs,

• The section of trap yard fencing either side of the entry and exit gates should be reinforced as these are the specific areas apart from corners that trapped goats tend to hit more than others sections of fencing as they are trained to utilise these areas when they enter or leave the trap yard,

• When trap yards are in operation the entry and exit gates should be immediately blocked off with some suitable material before commencing working with trapped animals. In general use, animals should not be able to force their way out through a set of gates but when the animals are being worked in the trap ya rd the pressure on the gates may be sufficient to force them open enough to allow some animals to escape,

• The addition of stock handling facilities within, or attached to, the trap yard increases the initial cost of construction for the yard but makes the yards more efficient overall reducing handling costs and increasing returns on a per head basis. These areas need to be reinforced or heightened as the goats are confined to smaller races and are under greater stress even than when in the trap yard. If goats are worked calmly through these areas without overcrowding, shouting, dogs or prods combined with the use of solid materials on the sides of the races focusing the goats attention to the light at the end of the race they are more tractable and less stressed,

• Removing any trapped goats from the trap yard every day is recommended as it reduces overcrowding and associated stresses, allows shy animals access to the water point, it reduces the time that inquisitive individuals have in the yard to test the fencing out, and allows the removal of animals to a secure holding paddock near the trap where they can rest and feed until a saleable mob has been


accumulated if so desired. Any trapped livestock or native species can also be released at the same time,

• Implementing a thorough maintenance program prior to use of trap yards to prevent trapped animals damaging themselves or others while in the yard or from escaping from the yards and becoming trap shy individuals in the future. If trap yards were initially planned, designed and built to a high standard the need for maintenance should be a minor cost in time and resources.

Recommendations: Several recent publications provide clear, concise and practical information regarding this technique including construction tips, technical drawings, photographs and materials lists. These were discussed previously in Recommendation 1.1.


ITEM 4. FERAL GOAT BEHAVIOUR AT TRAPS ON WATER SOURCES AND GUIDELINES ON THEIR USAGE THAT WILL ENSURE THAT ANIMAL WELFARE IS NOT COMPROMISED. Summary: Feral goat movements are localised within a home range that provides all the basic requirements for survival such as food, water and shelter. It may overlap with a number of other animals but generally no large-scale migration from the home range takes place even after disturbances such as control measures. Because feral goats are not restricted by standard stock proof fencing, home ranges may extend over paddock and property boundaries and include several sources of drinking water which become the focus of the home range in dry times. It is essential therefore, to plan and implement a cooperative approach to feral goat control over a number of water points whether they are on the same property but in different paddocks or on adjacent properties. Capture rates are influenced by the density of the feral goat population, the weather during the trapping session, the length of time the trap-yards are set and the numbers of other livestock using the same water point. The most effective and humane control techniques available should be adopted in any feral animal management program. Animal welfare issues and public awareness of the costs and benefits of control are integral parts of successful pest species management. Apart from the general provisions of the various State prevention of cruelty to animals’ legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by government advisory bodies, there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the operation of self-mustering trap-yards for the capture of either livestock or feral species. The current Codes of Practice are more than a decade old in which time the self-mustering trap-yard technique has become more widely adopted. Like most wild animals, feral goats are suspicious of new objects in their environment and require a period of time to become used to any such object and accept it as a usual part of their environment. Observations by researchers and land managers of feral goat behaviour around trap yards on water points indicates that animals become used to the presence of yards and will use the yards to get a drink. Careful consideration to planning, design, siting and construction of self-mustering trap yards combined with an adequate period of training, as indicated in Item 3, combine to assist in the adoption of a trap yard by feral goats, livestock and native animals. Pearce et al. (1998), found during several feral goat trapping efforts using permanent and portable trap yards at water points over two summers in Western Australia that no goats were observed milling around outside the permanent trap yards once set while many were observed milling around outside the portable yards. This indicates that the routine that animals develop during the training period recommended for the operation of self -mustering trap yards is a primary factor in the success of the system as a feral goat management technique compared to the opportunistic trapping of feral goats at water points using portable equipment. Pearce (unpublished data) observed goats walking through free standing water to access drinking water in a trough located in a trap-yard


because of the routine that they had developed from being trained to drink there. The observations reported by these and others (O’Dempsey 1993, Casburn et al. 1999, Thompson et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000) indicate that, once trained, there is little hesitation in feral goats entering permanent self-mustering trap-yards unless the yard is crowded with other goats or livestock when more timid animals are inclined to avoid using the trap-yard. In reports where an estimate of feral goat population size was obtained before and after a trapping program to test the effectiveness of permanent self -mustering trap-yards as a feral goat management technique (Pearce et al. 1998, Casburn et al. 1999, Thompson et al. 1999), it was found that not all goats that might be using a water point will be trapped in any one trapping session. This is influenced by the density of the feral goat population, the weather during the trapping session, the length of time the trap yards are set and the numbers of other livestock using the same water point. Pearce et al. (1998), operating in a low goat density population, reported capturing all the goats known using a water point after 4 days in one year but in the following year with only 2 days trapping producing similar numbers caught as the previous year had not caught every animal using that water point. Working with higher density goat populations Casburn et al. (1999) and Thompson et al. (1999) found that even with repeated successful trapping sessions at the same water points, many goats in a district remained uncaught. Part of the explanation of this is the mobility of the species throughout its home range in the arid and semi-arid rangelands potentially giving it access to several water points. A major problem that has been identified in the control of feral goat populations is their mobility. Many land managers believe that feral goats move large distances and that animals migrating in from elsewhere cause goat management problems on their properties. King (1992) and Holt and Pickles (1996) demonstrated that feral goat movements were localised within a home range that provided all the basic requirements for survival such as food, water and shelter. It may overlap with a number of other animals but no large-scale migration from the home range takes place even after disturbance due to control measures. They also found that, because standard stock proof fencing does not restrict feral goats, home ranges generally extended over paddock and property boundaries and may include several sources of drinking water, which become the focus of the home range in dry times. This meant it was essential to plan and implement a cooperative approach to feral goat control over a number of water points be they on the same property but in different paddocks or on different properties altogether. But if all goats using a water point were removed at the same time it may stay relatively goat free for some time until others gradually took up the vacant home ranges. Apart from the general provisions of the various state prevention of cruelty to animals legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture (SCA, 1991 and 1992) there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the operation of self -mustering trap yards for the capture of livestock or feral species. A number of unregulated practices have been developed through the practical experiences of operators of self-mustering trap yards. As with any livestock handling industry some actions could be considered to be best practice and have as their


basis the care and welfare of the animals and the handlers while others are not as professional. The actions that might form best practice guidelines address both pre-trapping and trapping phases of the program and include engineering, environmental and management components. Some of these were discussed in Item 3 but are discussed further below. Pre-trapping:

• Develop a local and regional strategic management plan for feral goat control that defines the problem, selects management options, implements the plan and monitors and evaluates the plan (Parkes et al. 1996).

• The provision of an adequate training period and monitoring of the use of other water points that may be fenced off to force goats to use self-mustering trap yards. This may have an impact on native wildlife, feral goats and livestock as they develop a familiarity with the trap yard. The period of training should be slowed down if any species is exhibiting difficulties adapting.

• Self-mustering trap yards have to be designed, sited and constructed to a high standard. It should be situated on animal trails coming into the water point so that the gates are encountered on the usual path to water making it more likely the target species will quickly accept and continue to use it. Fencing materials used should be small enough that an animal cannot get its head caught in the fencing nor be large enough to be able to force their way through the barrier. The trap yard should be built large enough to comfortably handle the work it is expected to do and enable the entry of the biggest animals and comfortably contain all trapped animals and to prevent any escapes. Holding paddocks nearby ease congestion and allow proper care while accumulating saleable lots.

• Planning trapping sessions for feral goats when livestock may be out of the paddock for shearing, lambing/calving, or spelling reduces risks to valuable livestock that may be trapped in yard with feral goats and avoids trapping cows and ewes that may get trapped having cached a calf or lamb before going for a drink. If livestock is not moved out of the paddock then avoiding lambing/calving times and soon afterwards can reduce risks of losing calves and lambs. While goats may kid at any time of the year there are seasonal spikes in births and trapping should avoid these times as young kids that do not accompany their mother into the trap may be separated and die of starvation or if trapped may get trampled underfoot.

• Planning trapping sessions for feral goats considering native species that may also be trapped. As feral goats and livestock species tend to water during daylight and Macropods during night the trap can be set at dawn to catch goats and livestock and opened in the evening for access by Macropods. So-called Kangaroo gates and low fences can be engineered into the trap-yard to allow macropods to safely go under the fence (except when the trap is set) or over it.


Post-trapping:

• Once trapped, goats need to be removed from the trap daily to prevent escapes and reduce stresses. They can be drafted into larger, secure holding yards attached to the trap to build up saleable mobs or could be trucked away from the site for holding or destruction elsewhere. This will depend on the outcomes identified in the strategic plan and the economies of transportation compared with destruction. If being held for any length of time, adequate shelter, food and water need to be provided and animals checked daily for signs of injury or lack of thrift.

• Any trapped native species should be released from the trap yard before any other work is done around the trap.

Recommendations: Pest management programs should be planned and coordinated using the most effective and humane control techniques available. Strategies for increasing public awareness and the need to consider animal welfare issues in the context of the costs and benefits of control are integral parts of successful pest management Recommendation 4.1 It is recommended that all applications for Natural Heritage Trust funding for feral goat control works be dependent on the submission of a strategic management plan where the problem is defined, management plan developed and implemented and then monitored and evaluated for effectiveness. The self-mustering trap-yard is a technique that has a good working history of effective use in the management of livestock as well as in the control of feral species because of environmental, economic and social advantages. However, apart from the general provisions of the various State prevention of cruelty to animals legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by government advisory bodies there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the operation of self-mustering trap-yards for the capture of either livestock or feral species. The current Codes of Practice are more than a decade old in which time the self-mustering trap-yard technique has become more widely adopted. Recommendation 4.2 It is recommended that current Codes of Practice for self-mustering livestock and feral species need to be reviewed and improved with the inclusion of specific trapping guidelines mentioned here included as best practice operations. Revised Codes of Practice to be adopted uniformly throughout Australia. Recommendation 4.3 It is recommended that all applications for Natural Heritage Trust funding for feral goat control works be dependent on the acceptance of the best practice guide lines for the humane use of trap-yards laid out in the updated Codes of Practice.


A clearly defined animal welfare issue has been identified in relation to the trapping of off-target wildlife species such as Macropods and Emus at trap-yards. The engineering and management strategies currently adopted to mitigate this issue are effective to a limited degree but the ideal situation would be if no wildlife species were trapped or if trapped animals could release themselves without the need for daily human intervention. Recommendation 4.4 It is recommended that funding be provided for research into engineering and design solutions concerning selective watering and species-specific entry and exit designs with the results published and included in revised Codes of Practice.


ITEM 5. INFORMATION ON MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR HUMANE DISPOSAL OF FERAL GOATS THAT ARE TRAPPED. Summary: Expectations within the general community that all animals should be treated humanely are rising. Failure to adequately consider animal welfare issues can cause major problems for pest control and may lead to bans on the introduction and use of certain control techniques. The successful operation of permanent trap-yards at water points to catch feral goats requires a commitment of time and resources on behalf of a land manager and there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the use of this control technique compared with other goat control techniques. One advantage is the option of the humane destruction of any captured feral goats on property or their removal off-property for live sale to abattoirs for slaughter or live export to recover construction, maintenance and operational costs of the self -mustering trap-yard. Animal welfare issues are an important consideration in the choice of disposal option. Apart from the general provisions of the various State prevention of cruelty to animals legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by government advisory bodies there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the transportation and destruction of feral species. The current Codes of Practice are more than a decade old and the market in feral animals and their products is expanding rapidly. Animals now classified as ‘feral’ in Australia were originally introduced as domestic livestock or as a private or public hunting resource. With time, as these species came to be considered less an asset and more a pest, their legal status changed from being regarded as private property to having no legal status beyond the statutory responsibility of landholders for their control under the various State noxious animals Acts. An example of this can be seen in the landholder view of feral goats as pests or resources depending on the prevailing commodity prices and the resistance among some landholders that moves to have such species covered by noxious animals legislation meets (Choquenot et al. 1998). It is unacceptable to treat animals as objects without rights and there is an increasing expectation within the community that all animals, whether companion animals, domesticated livestock, wildlife or feral animals, should be treated humanely. Apart from the moral obligation, failure to adequately consider animal welfare can cause major problems for pest control and may lead to bans on the introduction and use of certain control techniques (Olsen, 1998). Even the perception within the community that there has been a failure to adequately consider animal welfare issues can lead to bans. A recent example of this was the granting of an injunction to Animal Liberation New South Wales preventing New South Wales National Parks service from conducting an aerial feral goat cull in western New South Wales (ABC, 2003). Failing to improve the humane treatment of pest animals may also impact on trade opportunities an example being the pressure from animal welfare organizations to ban the live export of feral goats. The recent debate


that developed around the well established and economically valuable live sheep export trade centring on the Cormo Express is an example of how the issue can quickly change from a trade dispute to an animal welfare debate. Pest management programs should be planned and coordinated using the most effective and humane control techniques available. Strategies for increasing public awareness and the need to consider animal welfare issues in the context of the costs and benefits of control are integral parts of successful pest management (Olsen, 1998). The National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW) cons iders it essential that animal welfare concerns be given equal weighting with other factors in assessing management options (O’Flynn, 1992). The use of the self-mustering trap-yard as a feral goat control technique has a number of environmental, economic and social advantages, previously discussed in Item 1. It is a technique that has a good working history of effective use in the management of livestock enterprises as well as in the control of feral species. However, apart from the general provisions of the various State prevention of cruelty to animals legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by the SCA (1991 and 1992), there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the operation of self-mustering trap yards for the capture of either livestock or feral species. It is probable that most land managers would baulk at having such a basic issue as stock management and handling specifically prescribed by regulation but it is highly likely that in some instances the operation of self -mustering trap yards could be conducted in a more effective and humane manner if information on the appropriate best practices were more readily available. No self-mustering trap-yard system should be erected or operated for the capture of domestic livestock or feral goats unless it is to be operated professionally and humanely and preferably forms part of a strategic management plan for the control of feral goats. The control of feral goat numbers is proposed by both land managers and conservationists as having positive economic and environmental benefits. For land managers it creates additional income from harvesting animals, reduces competition with livestock and improves total grazing management and provides employment in transport and abattoir industries. For conservationists the primary environmental benefit is lower grazing pressure in general on a landscape scale aiding in habitat recovery as well as strategic reduction in competition with endangered fauna and flora (Environment Australia 1999). Animal welfare organizations such as NCCAW (O’Flynn, 1992), RSPCA (2002) and Animal Liberation (South Australia) (1998) recognise that there are occasions when populations of feral animals need to be reduced either for their own welfare (such as in droughts) or to provide environmental benefits (such as in reducing competition or predation on endangered native wildlife). Non-lethal control measures are recommended with the humane killing of animals being the last option sought. Some conservationists and none of the animal welfare organizations support the commercialisation of the control of feral animal populations such as happens with feral goats where mustered or trapped animals are transported from site for sale elsewhere. These conservationists see a danger in placing an economic benefit on feral animals such that their control may


develop into a harvest of suitable animals with the remainder released to breed up again. Animal welfare groups recommend that if animals need to be killed it should be done as humanely as possible near the animals’ range and by transporting animals elsewhere for a financial benefit is an inhumane infringement of that animals rights. The use of the self-mustering trap yard as a feral goat control technique provides the option of the humane destruction of any captured feral goats on property or their removal off-property for live sale to abattoirs for slaughter or live export or their removal off-property for live sale for domestication elsewhere (or a combination of these options) to recoup some of the construction, maintenance and operational costs of the self-mustering trap yard. These are discussed separately below. Humane destruction on property:

• Most humane option as animals are destroyed at, or close to, point of capture. Stress results from animals being confined and from sight and sound of others being destroyed. SCA (1992) recommends .243 calibre with 80grain projectile as preferred firearm although.222 and .223 calibres are adequate in skilled hands. Target point is so-called ‘behind the horns’.

• Destroying animals in the trap yard is most humane method as no additional stress to animals in loading, transporting and unloading for destruction elsewhere on property. Destroying animals in the trap yard can result in damaged infrastructure from frightened animals, the need to pick up and transport carcasses, potential deterrence of other animals not using the trap yard because of sounds of firearms and sight and smell of animal products in the yard.

• Destruction of any captured feral goats on property needs adequate disposal of carcasses. Disposing of carcasses in pits may have health implications and affect ground water quality. Not disposing of carcasses in pits may result in increased numbers of predators and scavengers such as foxes, dingos or dogs leading to later higher livestock losses.

• Destruction of captured feral goats on property discounts the opportunity to recoup some of the construction, maintenance and operational costs of the self -mustering trap yard and increases costs/head of control as total costs and handling time (labour) are increased.

Removal off-property for live sale to abattoirs for slaughter or live export

• Removal of trapped feral goats off-property for live sale involves additional stress to animals in loading, transporting, unloading and holding for slaughter at abattoirs or prior to reloading for live export. With consideration of best practice management of animal welfare issues SCA (1991 and 1992) recommends that where practical, goats that differ greatly in size and the two sexes should be separated for transport. Transportation should be to an abattoir within reasonable range capable of handling them. Electric prods or goading devices should not be used when handling feral goats and only well trained dogs to be used, if used at all. Goats should be caught and restrained with care and picked up bodily not by


horns or hair. Injured, diseased, uncontrollably fractious animals and very young kids should be humanely destroyed rather than transported. Confined animals need adequate food, water and shelter provided and be checked at least daily for signs of injury, illness or distress. Animals that do not respond to treatment should be humanely destroyed rather than be allowed to weaken and starve.

• Cases of significant losses of goats of feral origin in the live export trade have been reported where animals were inadequately cared for over abnormal holding periods. A common error in the past has been the treatment of goats of feral origin in the same manner as domesticated live sheep export when the two species have different requirements. Mortality rates among live shipments of goats of feral origin are on average higher than among live shipments of sheep because the animals have not been domesticated and a re more fractious O’Flynn, (1992).

• It is in the goat buyers’ economic interest as well as the welfare interest of the animals for the buyer to determine the level of care and attention that feral goats receive prior to purchase (Stubing pers comm. 2003). These include how they were caught, conditions in which held on property, how long held on property and transport conditions. Buyers prefer to organise their own transport and to source goats within a days travel of their operation. A number of animal welfare issues need to be considered as goats of feral origin need to be processed within several days of capture otherwise become stressed, waste and die.

• Removal of trapped feral goats off-property for live sale provides the opportunity to recoup some of the construction, maintenance and operational costs of the self-mustering trap yard and the goat control program.

• This option provides an alternate or supplemental source of income for landholders in the arid and semi-arid rangelands that can be used in environmental or property improvement activities. Current prices for goats of feral origin are around $2.60/kg dressed weight with a range of from around $37/head for animals < 16kg to $73/head for animals > 22kg without costs of transport (Stubing pers comm. 2003). These prices are a response to the drought limiting supply but demand for the product staying strong and are the best they have been for the previous 5 years. An increase in supply bought about by a break in the drought could be expected to see these prices soften.

• A significant industry has been developed based on the export of live goats and goat carcasses. The industry supports numerous process workers, transport operators and others – often in regional communities – getting the product from property to point of consumption. Table 5 indicates the value of the export goat industry to Australia in selected years. A smaller domestic market in goat meat also exists.


Table 5: Value of export goat industry to Australia. Year Live goats

(No.) Value ($)

Value ($/head)

Meat (kg)

Value ($)

Value ($/kg)

1981/821 406 7,700 19 4,513,774 6,153,849 1.36 1982/831 28,210 1,058,000 37 5,427,221 7,897,000 1.46 1990/911 72,180 2,151,794 30 8,994,618 11,440,671 1.74 1991/921 81,547 3,745,622 46 15,627,212 20,353,865 1.78 2001/022 138,781 8,904,677 64 14,794,000 46,078,864 3.11 2002/032 89,133 10,730,537 120 15,273,000 46,911,370 3.07 1.Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994 $ values), Ramsay, 1994. 2.Source: Meat and Livestock Australia (current $ values).

• The development of the goat export industry was largely dependent on goats of

feral origin but in more recent times domesticated goats have become a more significant component of the industry and may become more important in the future because of product quality and continuity of supply. This is a potential danger in emphasising the economic returns to landholders as a primary benefit of controlling feral goats when developing a long-term management plan.

Removal off-property for live sale for domestication elsewhere:

• Removal of trapped feral goats off-property for live sale for domestication purposes involves additional stress to animals in loading, transporting, unloading and confinement during the domestication period. Mortality rates as high as 38% have been recorded in feral goats and anecdotal accounts indicate rates of up to 80% (O’Flynn, (1992). The problems leading to mortality and morbidity are broadly categorised as metabolic, nutritional, parasitic and environmental with stress being a common underlying factor.

• If captured feral goats are not crowded together or harassed by working dogs they can be handled successfully with minimal stress to the goats or handlers. Although they rarely become as quiet as goats bred in a domestic situation, feral goats adapt well to domestication once accustomed to it. However, to be carried out successfully, this process requires a considerable input of time, expertise and money (O’Flynn, (1992).

• The Model Code of Practice for the welfare of animals – The Goat (SCA, 1991) includes recommendations on the domesticated goat’s requirements for food, water, shelter, handling facilities, management practices and health. The adoption of these practices can minimise stress to the goats.

• The removal of trapped feral goats off-property for domestication was a practice adopted to enable the rapid build up of numbers in the domestic flock of fibre and meat producing goats. Individual feral goats with the desired traits were selected out of captured groups and transferred to domestic situations where they were bred with purebred stock to produce crossbreeds that could be crossed back to pure stock several times to improve the performance of the flock and rapidly build up numbers. It is probably a technique less in use now with the easier availability of good quality domestic stock and alternate flock improvement techniques.


The SCA, Animal Health Committee has developed several codes of practice for the welfare of animals entitled The Goat (1991) and Feral Livestock Animals-destruction or capture, handling and marketing (1992). These codes make recommendations on issues such as use of traps for feral animals, humane destruction of feral animals following capture, accommodation and handling facilities, food and water, transportation and handling practices. The Animal Health Committee is currently reviewing codes of practice for Feral Livestock Animals-destruction or capture, handling and marketing. It is important that governments and other organizations responsible for pest animal control ensure that animal welfare concerns are appropriately considered, put into perspective and effectively communicated to the community. Most States and Territories have comprehensive animal welfare legislation. The relevant State and Territory agencies and national committees, such as NCCAW and the RSPCA, have an important role in safeguarding the welfare of animals, including pests, by developing Codes of Practice for the control of animals. Pest management should be consistent with these codes (Olsen 1998). Recommendations: The successful operation of permanent trap-yards at water points to catch feral goats requires a commitment of time and resources on behalf of the land manager and there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the use of this control technique compared with other goat control techniques. One advantage is the option of the humane destruction of any captured feral goats on property or their removal off-property for live sale to abattoirs for slaughter or live expor t to recoup some of the construction, maintenance and operational costs of the self-mustering trap-yard. Apart from the general provisions of the various State prevention of cruelty to animals legislations and several non-binding Model Codes of Practice developed by government advisory bodies there appear to be no prescribed guidelines on the transportation and destruction of feral species. The current Codes of Practice are more than a decade old and the market in feral animals and their products is expanding rapidly. Recommendation 5.1 It is recommended that current Codes of Practice for transportation and destruction of feral species need to be reviewed and improved in consultation with animal welfare groups with the inclusion of specific guidelines mentioned here included as best practice operations. Revised Codes of Practice to be adopted uniformly throughout Australia. Recommendation 5.2 It is recommended that all applications for Natural Heritage Trust funding for feral goat control works be dependent on the acceptance of the best practice guidelines for the humane transportation or destruction of feral goats as laid out in the updated Codes of Practice.


RECOMMENDATIONS

• It is recommended that Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage begin negotiations with the publishers of two booklets discussed in Item 1 so that they may be made more widely distributed individually or preferably, the possibility of combining the information from both publications into the one booklet. This booklet should be made available to pest animal control officers, Landcare groups, conservation agencies and anyone seeking funding from the Natural Heritage Trust for goat control work.

• It is recommended that competition effects caused by goats be identified and

measured through specific research programs and any positive environmental responses to their removal be identified, quantified and published.

• It is recommended that consideration be given to funding repeatable, complete, up

to date and published estimates of feral goat numbers and densities at regional and landscape scale similar to that presently provided for Kangaroos.

• It is recommended that information on the availability of tax incentives for

undertaking certain actions to prevent and treat land degradation be provided in the booklet recommended for publication above.

• It is recommended that all applications for Natural Heritage Trust funding for

feral goat control works be dependent on the submission of a strategic management plan where the problem is defined, management plan is developed and implemented and then monitored and evaluated for effectiveness.

• It is recommended that current Codes of Practice for self-mustering livestock and

feral species need to be reviewed and improved with the inclusion of specific trapping guidelines mentioned here included as best practice operations. Revised Codes of Practice to be adopted uniformly throughout Australia.


feral goat control works be dependent on the acceptance of the best practice guidelines for the humane use of trap-yards laid out in the updated Codes of Practice.

• It is recommended that funding be provided for research into engineering and

design solutions concerning selective watering and species-specific entry and exit designs with the results published and included in revised Codes of Practice.

• It is recommended that current Codes of Practice for transportation and

destruction of feral species need to be reviewed and improved in consultation with animal welfare groups with the inclusion of specific guidelines mentioned here


included as best practice operations. Revised Codes of Practice to be adopted uniformly throughout Australia.


feral goat control works be dependent on the acceptance of the best practice guidelines for the humane transportation or destruction of feral goats as laid out in the updated Codes of Practice.


BIBLIOGRAPHY Agriculture Protection Board (1998). Requirements for the establishment of a feral goat holding facility on pastoral leasehold land. Agriculture Protection Board, Western Australia, Perth. Agriculture Western Australia (2001). Goats from Western Australia at a glance, Bulletin 4468, Government of Western Australia, Perth Animal and Plant Control Commission (1998). Policy relating to feral goats. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Adelaide, South Australia. Animal Liberation (South Australia) (1998). Feral Animals and Mustering Information Documents, sourced from www.animalliberation.org.au Baulderstone, C.S., Owens, H., Possingham, M.L., and Possingham, H.P. (1999). Gammon Ranges National Park: Flora and fauna survey and vegetation monitoring, 1993-1995. The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Adelaide. Best, L., (1992). (Ed). Proceedings of Feral Goat Seminar. Department of Environment and Planning. Adelaide, South Australia. Blood, D., Johnson, T., and Scott, W. (2002) Some thoughts on goat grazing, Southern Rangelands Pastoral Memo Vol 8 No 1, Agriculture Western Australia, Perth. Bomford, M., and O’Brien, P.O., (1995). Eradication of Australia’s vertebrate pests: a feasibility study. Pgs 243-250 in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Ed. by G.C. Grigg, P.T. Hale and D.Lunney. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Qld, Brisbane. Braysher, M., (1993). Managing Vertebrate Pests – Principles and Strategies. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, ACT. Braysher, M., and G. Saunders (Draft) Pestplan – a guide to setting priorities and developing a management plan for pest animals, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Brennan, G., (2002) Yerilla Rangelands Goat Workshop, Southern Rangelands Pastoral Memo Vol 8 No 2, Agriculture Western Australia, Perth. Bureau of Resource Sciences (1998). New Approaches to Managing pest Animals – integrating education and extension. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra. Campbell, D.J. and Rudge M.R. (1984). Vegetation changes induced over ten years by goats and pigs at Port Ross, Auckland Islands, Subantartic. NZ J.Ecol., 7: Pp 103-118.


Casburn, G., Hacker, R., and Brill, T. (1999). Evaluation of cooperative feral goat harvesting/control techniques, Final Report. New South Wales Agriculture. Orange. Cheffins, R. (1988). Cattle trapping and self mustering. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Information Series QI87018, Queensland Government, Brisbane. Choquenot, D., Caughley, J and McLeod, S. (1998) Scientific, economic and social issues of commercial use of wild animals in Australia. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra Choquenot, D., O’Brien, P., and Hone, J. (1995) Commercial use of pests: can it contribute to conservation objectives? Pp 251-258. in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Ed. By G.C. Grigg, P.T. Hale and D.Lunney Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Connelly, P., Horrocks, D., Pahl, L., and Warmin, K. (2000). Cost-effective and multipurpose self-mustering enclosures for stock. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Brisbane. Dalton, C., and R. Kilgour (1984) The Goat, in Livestock Behaviour – a practical guide. NSW University Press. Sydney, Australia. Davies, R. J-P. (1990). Gammon Ranges National Park – Vegetation monitoring, and rare and threatened plant species survey, 1987. The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Adelaide. Davies, R. J-P. (1995). Threatened plant species management in the arid pastoral zone of South Australia. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide. Dawson, T.J. and Ellis, B.A. (1979). Comparison of the diets of Yellow-footed Rock-wallabies and sympatric herbivores in western New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research. 6: 245-254. de Preu, N. and Pearce, D. (2002). eds., Bounceback Flinders Ranges, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide. Department of Agriculture (2002). Rangelands Clean and Green – Case studies of quality assurance and environmental management in the Gascoyne -Murchison region of Western Australia, Misc Pub 37/2002, Government of Western Australia, Perth. Department of Agriculture (2002). Developing an Environmental Management System – a practical guide for pastoralists. Government of Western Australia, Perth. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, (2002). Victorian Pest Management-a framework for action, Summary. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.


Department of Natural Resources and Environment, (2002). Victorian Pest Management-a framework for action, Feral Pig and Feral Goat Management Strategy. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne. Department of Primary Industries, (1998). Goat Meat for Export – Workshop Report. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Queensland. Edge, W.D., Olson-Edge, S.L., and B.W. O’Gara (1989). Capturing wild goats and urial with a remotely fired net-gun. Australian Wildlife Research Vol. 16 No.3. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Victoria. Edwards, G.P., Clancy, T.F., Lee, J. and McDonnell, J. (1997). An evaluation of feral goat control methods on Currawinya National Park, southwestern Queensland. Rangel. J. 19(2), 166-73. Elliott, T.K., and Woodford, K. (1995) Ecology, commerce and Feral Goats. Pgs 267-275 in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Ed. by G.C. Grigg, P.T. Hale and D.Lunney. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Environment Australia, (1999). Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats. Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia. Canberra Fletcher, W. (1995). Yerilla Goat Grazing Study 1989-1990 – A summary of results, findings and observations. Agriculture Western Australia, Perth. Freudenberger, D.(Ed) (1993). Proceedings of the National Workshop on Feral Goat Management: Planning for Action. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, ACT. Freudenberger, D. and Hacker, R.B. (1997). The effect of temporary closure of watering points on grazing intensity of Red and Grey Kangaroos with related observations on feral goats. Rangel. J. 19(2), 157-65. Gray, G., and M. Massam, (2001). Keeping feral goats in agricultural areas, Farmnote 11/2001, Agriculture Western Australia, Perth. Goat Risk Assessment Working Party (2000) Inspection of domestic goat enterprises on pastoral properties in the western division of New South Wales, Unpub. Internal Report. Goat Risk Assessment Working Party (2001) Risk assessment for the keeping of goats – draft explanatory notes. Unpub. Internal Report. Government of South Australia.(1985). Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and Regulations. Government Printer, South Australia.


Government of South Australia.(1986). Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural Protection and other Purposes) Act, and Regulations. Government Printer, South Australia. Hacker, R.B. and Freudenberger, D. (1997). The effect of short-term exclosure of watering points on the behaviour and harvesting efficiency of Grey and Red Kangaroos. Rangel. J. 19(2), 145-56. Harrington, G. (1979). The effects of feral goats and sheep on the shrub populations in a semi-arid woodland. Aust. Rangel. J.1(4) pgs 334-45. Harrington, G. (1982). Feral Goat Control – Danggali Conservation Park. Australian Ranger Bulletin Vol 2 No.1. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra, ACT. Henzell, R.P. (1984) Methods of controlling feral goats. Department of Agriculture South Australia, Fact Sheet No 20/84, AGDEX 573. Henzell R.P., (1987) Methods of controlling feral goats in special situations. Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference 8 264-267. Henzell R.P. and P.I. McCloud (1984). Estimation of the density of feral goats in part of arid South Australia by means of the Petersen estimate. Australian Wildlife Research Vol. 11 No.1. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Victoria. Holt, C. and Pickles, G. (1996). Home range responses of feral goats. Rangel. J. 18(1), 144-9. Howell, R and Atkinson, G.C. (1994) Survey and control of feral goats Capra hircus in Tasmania, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Jago, B., (1999). Feral Goat (Capra hircus) in Queensland: Pest status review series – land protection. Department of Natural Resources, Queensland. James, J., (2000) Feral goat, Farmnote 83/2000, Agriculture We stern Australia, Perth. King, D. (1992). Home range of feral goats in a pastoral area in Western Australia. Wildlife Research Vol. 19 No.6. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Victoria. King, D. Norbury, G.L., and Elliot, G.J. (1996). The efficacy of Finlayson troughs as a means of repelling Kangaroos from water and altering grazing pressure in pastoral areas. Rangel. J. 19(1) 57-69. Landsburg, J. and Stol, J. (1996). Spatial distribution of sheep, feral goats and kangaroos in woody rangeland paddocks. Rangel. J. 18(2): 270-91.


Lund, R and May T. (1990) Goat fencing: industry standards. Agfact No. A7.2.1 Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, New South Wales. Mahood, I.T. (1985) Some aspects of ecology and the control of feral goats (Capra hircus L.) in western NSW, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney. Miller, E., Reithmueller J., Thompson, J., Kelly, D., and Boyd-Law, S. (1998). Economics of feral goat control in southwest Queensland. In Proceedings 11th Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference, Bunbury. Pgs 385-9. Niven, D.R. (1980a). Trapyards for feral goats, Qld Ag Journal Vol6No3, Agdex 470/723. Niven, D.R. (1980b) Electric fencing for feral goats, Qld Ag Journal Vol6No4, Agdex 470/722. Nobury, G.L. (1992). An electrified watering trough that selectively excludes Kangaroos. Rangel. J. 14(1) pgs 3-9. Northern Flinders Ranges Soils Conservation Board (1997). Northern Flinders Ranges Soil Conservation Board District Plan. AGDEX 477. O’Dempsey, N. (1993). Sheep self mustering-muster in your sleep. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Information Series QI93026, Queensland Government, Brisbane. O’Flynn, M. (1992) Animal welfare considerations. pp 40-57 in D. Freudenberger (ed), Proceedings of the National Workshop on Feral Goat Management: Planning for Action. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, ACT. Olsen, P. (1998). Australia’s Pest Animals – New Solutions to Old Problems. Bureau of Resource Sciences. Canberra, ACT. Parkes, J.P., (1984a). Feral goats on Raoul Island. 1. Effect of control methods on their density, distribution and productivity. NZ J. Ecol. 7: 85-94. Parkes, J.P., (1984b). Feral goats on Raoul Island. 11. Diet and notes on the flora. NZ J. Ecol. 7: 95-101. Parkes, J.P., (1990) Feral goat control in New Zealand. Biol.Cons., 54(4), pp 335-348 Parkes, J.P., (1993a) Feral goats; designing solutions for a designer pest. NZ Journal of Ecology 17: 71-83 Parkes, J., Henzell, R., and G. Pickles (1996) Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Goats. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.


Pearce, D., Elliot, G., and Rouda, R. (1998). Total Grazing Management - Results and Observations from the Pimbee Station trial. Agriculture Western Australia, Misc Pub 14/98. Pople, A.R., Clancy, T.F., and Thompson, J.A. (1996). Control and monitoring of feral goats in Central-western Queensland. Final report to the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Department of Environment, Qld. Pople, A.R., Clancy, T.F., Thompson, J.A. and S. Boyd-Law (1998). Aerial survey methodology and the cost of control for feral goats in western Queensland. Wildlife Research Vol 25 No.4. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. Pople, A.R., Grigg, G.C., Cairns, S.C., Alexander, P., Beard, L.A., and R.P. Henzell (1996). Trends in numbers and changes in the distribution of feral goats (Capra hircus) in the South Australian pastoral zone. Wildlife Research Vol. 23 No. 6. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (2003). Wool contamination – pigmented and heavily medullated fibres. Agdex 437/85, SARDI, South Australia. Ramsay, BT (1994) Commercial use of wild animals. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra Rouda, R. (1999). Virtual fencing- grazing animal control for the 21st century. Agriculture Western Australia, Perth. Rudge, M.R. (1984) The occurrence and status of populations of feral goats and sheep throughout the world. Pp. 55-84 in: P.N. Munton ed., Feral mammals – Problems and Potential. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Morges, Switzerland. RSPCA (2002) Policies and Position Papers - animal welfare and the environment, transportation of animals, humane killing and model legislation. Sourced from www.rspca.org.au Saunders, G.R., Bunn, C., Eggleston, G., Garner, G., and Henzell R (2000) AUSVETPLAN, Wild Animal management manual-strategic and operational guidelines, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Sharp, A., Holmes, K. and M. Norton (1999) An evaluation of a long-term feral goat control program in Mootwingee National park and Coturaundee Nature Reserve, far western new South Wales. Rangel. J. 21(1), 13-23. Sinclair Knight Merz (1998). Overview of research on grazing management and land use in the western division. Background Paper No. 1. Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, Toowoomba, Qld.


Southwell, C., Weaver, K., Sheppard, N., and P. Morris (1993). Distribution and relative abundance of feral goats in the rangelands of Eastern Australia. Rangel. J. Vol 15 331-333. Southwell, C., and G. Pickles (1993) Abundance, distribution and rate of increase of feral goats in Western Australia. Rangel. J. Vol. 15 334-38. Squires, V. (1982). Dietary overlap between sheep, cattle and goats when grazing in common. J. Range. Mngt. 35. pgs 116-9. Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Health Committee, (1991) Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals- The Goat. SCA Technical Report No 32. CSIRO. Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Health Committee, (1992) Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals- Feral Livestock Animals -destruction or capture, handling and marketing. SCA Technical Report No 34. CSIRO. Thompson, J., Riethmuller, J., Kelly, D., Boyd-Law, S., and Miller, E. (1999). Feral goat management in SW Qld – Final report to the Bureau of Rural Sciences. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane. Thompson, J., Riethmuller, J., Kelly, D., Miller, E. and Scanlon, J.C. (2002). Feral goats in South-western Queensland: a permanent component of the grazing lands. Rangel. J. 24(2): 268-87. Turner, C., (2003) Feral goat issue still on agenda, Across the Outback No 7, South Australian Government, Adelaide. Twyford-Jones, P. (1998) Overview of the goat meat industry. Goat meat for export workshop report, Roma 29 May 1998. Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Underwood, C. (2002) Total grazing management field guide - self-mustering systems for cattle, sheep and goats. Bulletin No. 4547. Department of Agriculture Western Australia.


APPENDICES Appendix 1: Designs and specifications for examples of self-mustering trap yards in use in Australia. (All dollar values are as of time of construction not current values). Appendix 1.1: Jump-down ramp trap-yard (Henzell, 1984). See Plate 3. Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) 4/120/10 weldmesh 65m 1.8m posts 26 1.8m x 1.2m corrugated iron 4 sheets 1.8m x 1.2m weldmesh gate 3 Gate hinge and chain 3 Total cost of materials ~300.00 Labour cost 4 days Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported Plate 3: Jump-down trap, jump and gate (Jago, 1999).


Appendix 1.2: Hinged-gate trap-yard (Cheffins, 1988). (Suitable for quiet cattle). See Plate 4. Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) 2.5m wooden spears 12 4.00 48.00 3.3m wooden posts 7 8.00 56.00 2.3m wooden posts 2 5.50 11.00 Miscellaneous 15.00 Wooden posts and rails 100m ~1,000.00 Holding paddock (3-barb fence) 1000m ~800.00 Total cost of materials ~1,930.00 Labour cost 1.5 days Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported

Plate 4: Timber two-way long spear gate: one fixed side, one swinging side (Cheffins,1988).


Appendix 1.3: One -way spear gates using Wyloo design (Cheffins, 1988). Suitable for quiet cattle, sheep and goats. See Figure 1b and Plate 5 for diagrams. Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) High tensile plain wire 1000m ~500.00 High tensile barb wire 500m ~400.00 1.8m wooden posts 30 1.5m steel droppers 64 Tie wire etc 3.6m x 1.2m weldmesh gate, etc 1 Spear gates 1 pair 300.00 Plus costs of materials for suitable sized holding yard

Total cost of materials Not reported Labour cost Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported Plate 5: The Wyloo (Western Australia) short

spear gate (Cheffins,1988).


Appendix 1.4: One-way spear gates using round trap-yard and ‘Boolathana’ gates. (Pearce et al. 1998, and Underwood 2002). See Figure 1c and Plates 6a-6c for diagrams. Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) 1 paddock system Posts (min 25mm diameter) 30 7.00 210.00 Mesh 1.4m (external fence) 60m roll 240.00 240.00 Railing (25mm) 2 x 10m 12.00 24.00 Mesh 1.15m (internal fence) 20m 200.00 200.00 Gates 1 90.00 90.00 Consumables 70.00 Boolathana trap gates 1pair 300.00 300.00 Total cost of materials 1,004.00 Labour cost 30 hours Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported 2 paddock system (20m diam.) Posts (min 25mm diameter) 48 7.00 336.00 Mesh 1.4m (external fence) 80m 240.00 312.00 Railing (25mm) 6 x 10m 12.00 72.00 Mesh 1.15m (internal fence) 60m roll 200.00 200.00 Gates 3 90.00 270.00 Consumables 100.00 Boolathana trap gates 2 pairs 300.00 600.00 Total cost of materials 1,290.00 Labour cost 60 hours Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported Plate 6a: Permanent ‘Boolathana’ trap-gate – walk in, walk out. (Pearce et al. 1998).


Plate 6b: Permanent ‘Boolathana’ trap-gate – trapping position. (Pearce et al. 1998). Plate 6c: Permanent ‘Boolathana’ trap-gate – closed. (Pearce et al. 1998).


Appendix 1.5: Construction cost of 75m x 75m trap southwest Queensland (Thompson et al. 1999). Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) Steel posts 70 3.10 400.00 Hinge joint mesh 300m 1,116/km 348.00 Plain wire 900m 64.67/km 58.20 Tie wire 50 70.00/km 3.50 Wooden posts 51 10.00 510.00 Bettini trap gates 2 pair 200.00 400.00 Total cost of materials 1,536.70 Labour cost 73hours 12.00/hour 876.00 Machinery costs 273.00 Total labour and machinery 1,149.50 Overall cost of trap-yard 2,686.20 Appendix 1.6: Construction costs of trap-yards in southwest Queensland (Queensland Department of Primary Industries). Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) Hingejoint 8/115/15 100m rolls 6 119.25 715,50 Plain wire 1500m 70.92 Barb wire 500m 48.90 Netting 30x4x1.4mm 100m rolls 6 65.18 391.08 Steel posts 1.8m 120 3.44 412.80 Weldmesh gate 3.6m x 1.2m 1 54.10 54.10 Strainer posts 83mm 8 15.84 126.72 Strainer posts 50mm 8 7.20 57.60 Stays 50mm 8 7.20 57.60 Spear traps 1 pair 500.00 Kangaroo gates 4 45.00 180.00 Consumables 42.01 Total cost of materials 2,657.23 Labour cost 1,116.00 Overall cost of trap-yard 3,773.23


Appendix 1.7: Construction costs of trap-yards in western New South Wales (Casburn et al. 1999). Materials Units Cost per unit ($) Total cost ($) 7 wire electric (95m x 95m) Steel posts 1.65m 40 4.20 166.00 Fibreglass droppers & clips 360.00 2.5mm heavy gal wire 250m/roll 10 27.50 275.00 Wood strainer posts 6 20.00 120.00 Steel strainer posts 8 20.00 160.00 Steel stays 7 10.00 70.00 Spear gate – cattle/sheep set 1 pair 400.00 RHS mesh panels 182.00 Consumables 25.60 Solar panel, energiser, etc 1,189.54 Total cost of materials 2,950.14 Labour cost Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported 80m x 50 hingejoint trap-yard Steel posts 1.65m 90 4.20 378.00 Hingejoint 8/115/15 100m roll 3 151.00 453.00 Plain wire 2.5mm 1500m coil 1 105.87 105.87 Wood strainer posts 14 20.00 280.00 Wood stays 11 10.00 110.00 Spear gate, Bettini cattle/sheep 3 pair 1,100.00 RHS mesh panels 119.00 Consumables 24.57 Weldmesh gate 3.6m x 1.2m 2 90.00 180.00 Total cost of materials 2,750.44 Labour cost Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported 40m x 40m x 40m triangle trap Steel posts 1.65m 38 4.20 159.60 Hingejoint 8/115/15 100m roll 1.5 151.00 226.50 Wood strainer posts 6 20.00 120.00 Wood stays 6 10.00 60.00 Spear gate - Bettini 1pair 300.00 300.00 Weldmesh gate 3.6m x 1.2m 2 90.00 180.00 Total cost of materials 1,046.10 Labour cost Not reported Overall cost of trap-yard Not reported


Appendix 2: Websites useful for aspects of this project www.abc.net.au (links to recent and archived Landline stories) www.affa.gov.au (background information on pest animals and management) www.agriculture.gov.au www.agric.nsw.gov.au www.agric.wa.gov.au (information in Farm Notes, AgMemos, Rangelands Bulletins concerning trapping and management of goats, Total Grazing Management) www.animalliberation.org.au (policy statements on trapping and utilisation) www.ava.au (Australian Veterinary Association site) www.boprc.govt.nz (NZ management information) www.brs.gov.au (background information on pest animals and management) www.csiro.au www.darwinfoundation.org (goat control on Galapagos Islands) www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au (land management issues in western NSW) www.dpi.qld.gov.au (land management issues in Qld) www.dpie.gov.au (same as www.affa.gov.au) www.ea.gov.au (biodiversity, land management, pest species) www.epa.qld.gov.au (land management issues in Qld) www.epa.nsw.gov.au www.invasives.org (IUCN invasive species specialist group site) www.nht.gov.au www.npws,nsw.gov.au (land management issues in NSW) www.nrm.qld.gov.au (Qld fact sheets) www.nsw.gov.au (wildlife issues, pest animal management) www.pestanimal.crc.org.au (mouse, rabbit, fox) www.pirsa.gov.au www.pcmconsulting.com.au (goat meat production in captivity) www.rirdc.gov.au (rural industry research development corporation site) www.rlpbnsw.org.au www.rspca.org.au www.wrc.govt.nz (NZ management information)