John Virtue, Paul O’Leary, Phil Gee and Nick Secomb: 'Planning and conducting removal operations – the SA experience'. Reducing feral camel impacts across remote Australia: Australian

Reducing feral camel impacts across remote Australia:

Australian Feral Camel Management Project

21st November 2013, Parliament House Theatre, Canberra

Session Two: Governance and Delivery Speakers: Billy Landy, Mark Jeffries and Peter See Byron Brooks, Ethan Hansen, Troy Hansen and Peter Twigg Mike Eathorne, Meramist Pty Ltd Andy Bubb, Ninti One John Virtue, Biosecurity SA Bidda Jones, RSPCA

Planning and conducting removal operations – the SA experience

John Virtue, Paul O’Leary, Phil Gee & Nick Secomb

Removal operations have been underpinned by landholder aspirations • Consultation

– Is required to achieve the most effective and acceptable control outcomes

– Considers indigenous, cultural and social factors

– Utilises local knowledge and expertise

– Delivers on the AFCMP objectives

– Collaborative approach across government

Determining removal method

• Aerial Cull • Muster • Combination of both

• Landholder aspirations • Effectiveness • Landscapes / logistics • Congregations • Density • Cultural sites • On-ground intelligence • Environmental assets • Available resources

Operational planning • Intelligence

− satellite collars − intelligence network − aerial survey /

reconnaissance

• Logistics

• Animal welfare • Safety • Target /no go zones • Internal/external

Communications

Decision support

• Efficient, opportunistic control to address a range of impacts and resource availability

Aerial cull - rapid response • Processes were developed

to allow for quick response to threats to fragile ecosystems or community infrastructure caused by congregations

Aerial cull – landscape scale • Aerial survey & reconnaissance

‘hot spots’ • No go areas

Implementation – aerial cull

• Animal welfare audits − flight following

behind cull − verification

Implementation – aerial cull

• Remote area logistics • Working across

jurisdictional borders • Engaging a range of

stakeholders

Implementation - mustering • Removal assistance • Animal welfare audits • Verification • Training

Compliance Requirement Comment Mustering

03

Yes Noif no, add comment

Mustering must not be conducted if camels are in poor body condition (CAM003 p.75 dotpoint 1)

04

Yes Noif no, add comment

Not present to audit

Camels must never be driven to the point of collapse CAM003 p.86 dotpoint 3)

05

Yes Noif no, add comment

Not present to audit

The tail end of the mob must be used to set the pace of the muster rather than be forced to keep up with the leaders (CAM003 p.75 dotpoint 3)

Four camels at the tail end of the mob were pushed to keep up with the rest of the mob.

06

Yes Noif no, add comment

Not present to audit

Camels should be allowed to drop out of groups that are being mustered if required to protect the safety and welfare of the animals or operators (CAM003 p.86 dotpoint 6)

06b

Yes Noif no, add comment

Not present to audit

Camels identified in 6 above which are not easily mustered should be culled humanely in accordance with agreed best practise (CAM003 p.86 dotpoint 6)

Three camels were allowed to drop out of the muster but these camels were not culled. This would have been very difficult given the terrain and the effort required to conduct the muster.

06c

Yes Noif no, add comment

Not present to audit

Camels identified in 6 above which are not easily mustered are able to be culled humanely in accordance with agreed best practise (AFCMP only)

Yes, firearm present

07

Yes Noif no, add comment

Camels are provided with access to water as soon as possible after capture, either through yard watering or through succulent feed while being moved or held in open areas (CAM003 p.88 dotpoint 3)

Water trough was available to camels in holding yard.

Implementation - mustering • Targeted removal assistance

provided cow removal incentive (environmental/commercial partnership)

• Generates income and jobs (particularly indigenous)

• Flow on effects into broader local economy

• Animal welfare outcomes were improved

SA outcomes from AFCMP • Simpson Desert

• Reduced camel density by over 90% • Almost 50% of 2010 population removed

• Redeploy satellite collars and camera trapping continue to monitor/aerial shoot programs

• APY • 16,000 camels removed • Develop emergency management plan • Continue to support removal programs • Capacity building

• GVD • Rapid response to potential impacts on Yalata coast, Dog Fence and

Eyre highway • Continue to monitor satellite collars

www.nintione.com.au