First up, let me say I am very supportive of a national plan to tackle the problem of Wild Dogs.
It is for that reason that I took the time to read the
National Wild Dog Action Plan and I was keen to see how skilled shooters & hunters could contribute.
I had been looking at
2013 Game Council Public Benefit Assessment which reported that the R-Licence Hunters had removed a couple of thousand Wild Dogs from NSW each year in the past few years. So I was expecting that we might get a mention in this plan.
No such luck!
The Plan is Flawed
- because it ignores a significant resource
- because it shows an ideological bias against that resource
THE RESOURCE
It was quite a surprise to find that the draft plan seemed
totally oblivious to the idea of using volunteer shooters as part of
the mutltifaceted solution to the problem.
Instead I saw a plan that looks like all the other plans - BAIT BAIT BAIT was the clear inference from the document.
What a disappointment to find the Draft Wild Dog Action Plan seems to have totally ignored
- 20,000 NSW Game Licence holders,
- 40,000 Victorian Hunting Licence Holders
- SSAA Conservation Groups (in every State)
- SSAA Farmer Assist Program in Queensland,
A closer reading of the plan and I think I see the finger prints of the people to questions about this oversight.
After all the fine words, we come to the supporting documents.
In particular
Table
E1. Humaneness, Efficacy,Cost‐Effectiveness and Target Specificity of
Wild Dog Control Methods adapted from Sharp and Saunders (2008).
Which appears to have been developed to focus all the control efforts on co-ordinated baiting programs at the expense of all other options & with the result that all other complementary efforts are overlooked.
When ever I see "Sharp & Saunders" I know I am going to see SHOOTING deliberately down played as a tool for pest animal control.
I have addressed some of my issues with Sharp and Saunders elsewhere, but lets look at how this flawed assessment model sabotages the Wild Dog Action Plan.
THE EFFICACY OF SHOOTING was rated as– Not Efficient for a broad scale problem
EFFICACY – is the ability to achieve the desired or intended outcome.
If you objective is to end the life of the wild dog/interupt the breeding cycle then I think a reasonable person would agree that
shooting a wild dog dead is quite an effective way to stop dogs attacking stock and breeding.
It is equally true that giving a dog a leathal dose of 1080 poison is also quite effective.
The objective of the Wild Dog Action Plan is to do the above in such numbers as to significantly reduce the impact of wild dog predation on agriculture.
To Say that shooting not able to do the job is not really true. ( I not arguing most efficient, or best choice)
So perhaps, Shooting does not work as the only method of control in a multi property setting.
That is not quite right either a study
of a coordinated fox shooting program shows that shooting CAN be used in a multi property fox control program. Maybe wild dogs are different but nothing is put forward in the comments to address that.
Shooting does in fact have the desired effect on the dog - it kills the dog and stops it breeding.
Shooting can be used as the only tool for a dog problem.
So SHOOTING IS ABLE to do the Job, therefore is EFFICACIOUS
The assessment avoid that conclusion by talking about its efficiency.
Thus it answer a question that was not asked & so fails to properly assess shooting.
Before I go to Cost Effectiveness, a quick comment on Baiting:
Setting Baits is ONLY effective control on a "Broad Scale Problem" when you have a sufficient number of property owners participate in the baiting program.
The whole reason the the Coordinated Fox Shoot Study was run was because they had a significant number of land holders who would not allow baiting on their land.
You see - Me
Setting Baits on my property when very few other people are baiting
DOES Nothing to control the Fox or Dog population.
So
- ad hoc shooting on its own does little for the dog control plan, just as
- ad hoc baiting does little for dog control or
- any ad hoc control effort.
No other Control Method on the list is assessed as if it is going to be an Ad Hoc Effort.
The COST EFFECTIVENESS of shooting was assessed as - Expensive
This is a new approach to getting people to look away from shooting.
Previous DPI assessment of shooting as a control method said shooting was
inexpensive if you did not count labour costs.
In many instances you did not count labour costs because the Farmer themselves was doing the shooting/pest control. A fact borne out by the latest Landcare survey [2]
The other reason you would exclude labour costs is if you had ready access to a pool of volunteers who undertake the work for free.
NB: Baiting Cost Effectiveness assumes ground baits not buried baits (see latter note)
So in the preparation of Table E1 the assessment has assumed that no such pool of free labor exists and that land owners must pay some one to do the shooting.
This is clearly not true.
Look at the participation rate in the Victorian Fox Bounty Scheme.
Look at
- 20,000 NSW Game Licence holders,
- 40,000 Victorian Hunting Licence Holders
- SSAA Conservation Groups (in every State)
- SSAA Farmer Assist Program in Queensland,
Clearly there is a pool of volunteers that might be mobilised for this task.
The assessment works of a false assumption and comes to a false conclusion.
Shooting is not EXPENSIVE, but rather range from FREE to EXPENSIVE.
This week the National Landcare Survey[2]said Farmers spend $25,000 a year on Pest Control.
How can a plan that claims to be seeking to get best result from resources available ignore thousands of potential volunteers hours & still claim to be achieving its objectives?
Remember the shooters would provide their own firearms, ammunition, fuel, food etc
No only do the do the work for Free, they bring money into the rural area suffering from the dog problem...
The TARGETSPECIFICITY of shooting was assessed as - HIGH
The TARGET SPECIFICITY of Baiting was assessed as - HIGH
Again, I find the assessment of Baiting to be a little dubious after looking at the
2011 Victorian DPI study [3] which using trail cameras showed showed that 44% of Surface Baits were taken by native animals. Namely Wombat and Ravens. (Burrying the bait made a big differnce reducing that to 9% of baits were taken by native animals Wombats again).
However, the "Cost Effectiveness" assessment of baiting program does not allow for the labour required to bury the baits. I make this note to remind you that you are not getting a like for like comparison on Table E1
Given NPWS, NSW Forestry, are likely to do aerial baiting, I dont see how 66% Hit Rate = HIGH for Baiting over the National Parks and State Forests is "Species Specific" control.
The HUMANENESS of shooting was assessed as - ACCEPTABLE
The HUMANENESS of baiting was assessed as - CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
This one is the most baffling.
BAITS = Conditionally Acceptable
- takes HOURS to kill the animal
- inflicts moderate to severe suffering during the process by the Sharp & Saunders Model [6]
SHOOTING = Acceptable
- instantaneous to minutes to kill the animal
- inflicts moderate suffering for those minutes [4] [5]
This is perhaps the most blatant fudge in the whole deal.
Conditionally Acceptable seems to be code for UnAcceptable.
I don't know anyone who would say - Torture the animal for Hours is OK under any Conditions.
On the other hand I can find plenty of people who will agree that (even though they hate killing) shooting the animal is kinder than poisoning the animal.
The arguement will be made that shooting is only humane if done by skilled shooters.
I agree. Good Shot placement of appropriate caliber at appropriate range is crucial for humane kill.
Proper Dose of Poison is also required to achive the Sharp and Saunders "Conditionally Humane" kill.
A proper dose of poison will cause as much pain and suffering to an animal as a misplaced shot
If I misplace my shot, I can take a follow up shot, I can track the animal and shoot again.
If I have not got the poison dose correct for the size of dog that eat the bait - what is the suffering visited upon the dog then? There is no follow up dose.
The way this Plan has been constructed:
- Misrepresents the efficacy of shooting
- Misrepresents the cost of shootinging
- Misrepresent the Humanness of Baiting making it appear almost as humane as shooting
- Misrepresents the Accuracy of Baiting suggesting it is as targeted as shooting when research shows it is not.
- Assess shooting using assumptions & criteria that it does not apply to baiting. (ie labour costs & impact of short dose vs poor shot placement
- Total ignores the issue using hunters/volunteers for - co ordinated activities, ability to contribute to the overall number of animals that can be shot opportunistically
As a result it will take options of the table that should be available & continues to misinform land managers and distort decision making in ways that reduce our ability to deal with the problem of wild dogs in the most effective combination of control approaches and tools.
[1]Assessing the
safe and effective use of aerial baiting for the control of wild dogs
inVictoria 2011 – Arthur Rylah Institute for Enviromental Research
TechnicalReport Series No 217
[3]Assessing
the safe and effective use of aerial baitingfor the control of wild
dogs in Victoria 2011 – Arthur Rylah Institute forEnviromental Research
Technical Report Series No 217
[7] www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/humaneness-model-pest-animals.pdf
