PROTECTING PEOPLE, PLACES AND PROPERTY
Killing of wildlife under crop protection permits
Information sheets are misleading
The information sheet ‘Protecting People, Places and Property’, provided by DPIPWE as a part of this review, has a title that is misleading and disingenuous. It more properly should have been titled ‘Culling native wildlife to protect pasture and crops’. Given the relatively low level of actions taken to control wildlife through lethal means for the protection of people and places, the brochure should have focused on the much bigger issue of culling for the protection of pasture and crops.
It is disappointing that the scale and seriousness of culling by land-based farmers, in particular, is not reflected in the background information provided. The public of Tasmania would have been much more concerned to make a comment if the information provided reflected the reality of what occurs.
Documents provided recently to the Tasmanian Greens through a Right To Information request shows that more than one million wallabies and possums were culled under crop protection permits in 2015 with more than half of a million culled in 2016. The RTI response also included figures on a surprisingly wide range of other mammals and birds that are being killed under crop protection permits, including fully protect species. The number of macropods and possums that are killed in a single year is outrageous and we can only imagine the proportion of these animals that did not die immediately and dies a long and protracted death.
The TCT recommends that during the Wildlife Regulations review that DPIPWE should refer to ‘Culling native wildlife to protect pasture and crops’ and includes back ground information on the scale and diversity of animals being culled each year. If necessary, the more specific issues of seal management and protection of people and property from wildlife should be dealt with separately.
Failure to raise issue of effectiveness of culling
Furthermore, it is arguable whether culling of wildlife actually protects crops and pasture in most instances where it is applied in Tasmania. It is disappointing that the effectiveness of such large scale killing of native wildlife is not even mentioned by DPIPWE in its background information.
From our investigations, it is unknown how many farmers actually document the impacts of browsing animals on crops and pasture, document their actions to control browsing animals (using both lethal and non-lethal actions) and measure whether these actions are effective in increasing farm productivity. While particular farmers probably undertake this type of monitoring, there is no systematic statewide approach to measure the impacts browsing animals and benefits of various control methods.
Since the 2018 state election, the TCT has made numerous attempts to solicit information from the state government about the impact of browsing wildlife and the effectiveness of existing control programs. While these requests were in the context of proposed changes to the legislation relating to access to Category C firearms, it revealed information highly relevant to the review.
The TCT has written twice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Water and made submissions to the two parliamentary committees of inquiry into proposed changes to firearms laws over a period of more than twelve months. We also scrutinized numerous submissions made to the parliamentary inquiries, in particular, those by the TFGA, and presented to both inquires.
The focus of each letter, submission and presentation was to request information regarding the level of impact of browsing animals on pasture and crops, the effectiveness of current browsing animal control methods and whether proposed changes to availability of firearms would make any significantly measurable effect.
The minister failed to identify any relevant information that the government used to assert that browsing animals were having significant impacts on farmers and that current control measures were insufficient. Our participation in the parliamentary inquiries produced no evidence from the state government, TFGA or shooting organizations that addressed these issues.
Despite our inquiries, we have not been able to identify any evidence relating to the level of impact of browsing animals, the effectiveness of current control methods in protecting pasture and crops and the benefit for farm productivity. One vital piece of advice, garnered from the Alternative to 1080 Poison Progam, that we passed on to the House of Assembly Committee of Inquiry is that if the impact of control measures is not closely monitored then farmers may be expending significant amounts of time and/or money to kill large numbers of wallabies and possums with little or no benefits for farm productivity i.e. they might be better off doing nothing
The TCT recommends that the Wildlife Regulations Review addresses the critical absence of any monitoring of browsing animal impacts and the effectiveness of control measures. At a statewide level DPIPWE should implement a long-term monitoring program to assist with determining the appropriateness of lethal control for key problem browsing animals. This coupled with property-based assessments (see below) will enable DPIPWE over time to determine when it is appropriate to issue crop protection permits with greater precision.
Absence of property based assessment
Prior to making this submission I wrote to the DPIPWE’s Natural Heritage Policy Section seeking clarification about the processes for assessing and approving applications for crop protection permits. The answer was, in short, that these are operational matters and as such are out of the scope of the Wildlife Regulations Review.
Irrespective of this, the reply provided an outline of the crop protection permit process that was deeply worrying. The process, as outlined, sensibly includes as assessment of the damage being done, the abundance and status of the species causing the damage and consideration of alternative strategies for control. It is stated that a site assessment is undertaken with respect to species of a higher conservation status.
What is most worrying is that there are no references to DPIPWE policies, guidelines and protocols. Apparently none of the operational measures undertaken with respect to assessing and issuing of crop protection permits are formalized. My experience and recent review of the DPIPWE web site show that there is no such formal documented process.
The process outlined in the DPIPWE reply is therefore assumed to exist as an undocumented or informal practice. It is assumed that no monitoring, reporting or review of the processes is required or undertaken.
I note that DPIPWE has issued protocols or guidelines for management of particular wildlife issues e.g. Code of Practice for use of 1080 Poison for Native Browsing Animal Control, Seal Management Framework 2018, Fallow Deer Farm Fencing Specification Guidelines and others.
The TCT strongly recommends that the DPIPWE produces a policy and guidance document for assessing and issuing crop protection permits, incorporating broad public input. The Wildlife Regulations should be amended to require the production of such a policy and guidance document and define a transparent process for its production that incorporates public input The document should be reviewed no less that every five years.
Protected Species
There also needs to be specific amendments to the Wildlife Regulations to stop certain practices. In particular permits for crop protection may only be issued for Partly Protected Species. Permits to take Protected Species and Specially Protected Species may only be issued for conservation related actions. Managing the impacts of protected species such as yellow-tailed black, sulphur crested cockatoo, black swan and eastern rosella, must be treated as part of a landowners duty of care to the natural environment. DPIPWE must make it a priority to assist these landowners to find non-lethal solutions.
Deer
Wild fallow deer in Tasmanian need to be managed by each private landowner to achieve the purpose that they deem necessary. If a private landowner does not want deer on their property they should be allowed to control the numbers to a level that suits them. If a group of recreational shooters wants to have deer available to them they either shoot on public land where deer are not having a significant impact or they purchase land for the purpose of shooting.
Firearms requirements
The TCT notes that the issue of expanding access to category C fire arms for browsing animal control (to agents of farm owners or manager i.e. recreational shooters) has not been raised by stakeholders since the last Wildlife Regulations review. As mentioned, the TCT undertook a thorough investigation and found that advocates for such a change have not produced evidence to support such a change in terms of improving effectiveness, efficiency and humaneness of browsing animal control.
Seal Management
The current management of seals by the fin fish farming industry is inadequate as is causes severe suffering to seals, only serves to delay more effective measures to protect farmed fish and may put fish farm workers at greater risk. The move away from translocating seals has lead to arguably worse practices including use of pellet guns and corralling seals in fish pens. These responses will do nothing to deter seals from returning to a fish farm to access fish or haul-out onto farm infrastructure. There are simple fencing systems that stop seals from getting on top of fish pens that have been used by some farms for decades. Similarly, some Tasmanian fish farms currently use pen systems that reduce the risk of seals accessing fish to a negligible level. Rather than allow inhumane control methods to continue, the fish farm companies need to be required to rapidly transition to new pen systems to protect their fish and workers. With these systems in place, on the long term, seals will stop seeing fish farms as a possible source of food or as haul-outs.
Ironically the practices currently used are putting fish farm workers at much greater risk as workers are more likely to be in close proximity to seals for longer periods and seals will become more aggressive if shot at or put in pens with numerous other seals.
The Wildlife Regulations should be amended to establish a short timeframe for all fish farming companies to transition to fish pen systems that maximize the separation of seals from farmed fish and farm workers, followed by the prohibition of inhumane controls such as pellet guns and penning.
DEER FARMING
The information sheet ‘Deer Farming’ should have included some background information on the history of escapes from deer farms and the links, proven and suspected, to the expansion of deer across the state. Most notable is the recent introduction of fallow deer to Bruny Island that is claimed to be the result of a botched attempt to transport deer to a privately owned island near Bruny Island. While the details are unclear it is not disputed that deer have recently been introduced to Bruny Island which, given its environmental, agricultural and tourism values, is a dangerous and embarrassing development.
The TCT shares most of the concerns raised previously by stakeholders.
In relation to point 1, we take the opposite view point, believing that deer are very different to most other stock in that they are known to survive well in the wild in Tasmania, can be very difficult to locate and roundup again and can cause serious harm to the natural environment and farming properties. Rather than loosen controls, deer farming needs to come under far stricter controls.
It would be preferable to prohibit deer farming in areas outside of the traditional range of wild fallow deer, including making provision for closing all existing farms. However, if prohibition is not considered feasible, deer farming in areas outside of the traditional range of fallow deer must comply with special provisions. In these areas deer farming should be regulated as if the farmer were operating a wildlife park and exhibiting introduced species.
An absolute minimum requirement for deer farming should be a tagging system so that any stray deer can be tracked back to the farm operator. If tagging is introduced the regulations need to make clear that the farmer is obliged to roundup stray deer promptly. Current regulations that mean that stray deer are forfeited to the Crown after 48 hours may actually be counter-productive i.e. the farmer could just wait for 48 hours and claim the Crown is responsible.
The Wildlife Regulations should provide for the closure of deer farms that pose unacceptable environmental, economic or social risks. The regulations should include the mandatory operational requirements that would, if not complied with, trigger farm closure. These need to be included in the Wildlife Regulations i.e. not be left to the discretion of DPIPWE.
There may be other conditions that can be applied subject to circumstances and are not mandatory on all farms. Penalties still need to apply, including closure of the farm, where non-compliance is repeated.
The most important mandatory management requirements, in terms of preventing escapes, relate to the security of fencing and control of the deer when being moved by farm operators out of fenced areas. It is insufficient to just define fencing requirements. Farm operators must have in place a regime of regular fence monitoring, repair and reporting of breeches. These requirements need to be applied to existing as well as future deer farming operations and therefore the department needs to put in place procedures for reviewing and amending all existing licences.
Where a deer farm is found to be ineffectively fenced, the regulations need to stipulate measures to contain the deer while fence repairs are made.
There need to be strict controls on the sale of live farmed deer to prevent them being sold to people who are incapable of securing them. Sale should be limited to those who have a current and compliant deer farming operation.
HUNTING WILDLIFE
The TCT acknowledges the limitations of existing regulations in relation to ensuring sustainable management of some wildlife species. The example of muttonbirds is outlined in the information sheet. The TCT is unwilling to come to conclusions or make recommendations until DPIPWE outlines specific alternative measures it might be considering.
Given that most muttonbird recreational permit holders report to DPIPWE (Game Tracks 2019)that they take from one rookery, one option would be to cap the number of people who may obtain permits for a particular rookery and place an appropriate per day bag limit.
While it is understood that the short muttonbird season coupled with people’s loyalty to a particular rookery may be inconvenient for people, any change to delay the season for particular rookeries may create other problems. There may be confusion among permit holders about the season dates. Having different seasons for some rookeries may increase the demand on DPIPWE’s compliance personnel.
The TCT supports changes to ensure that more modern technology is prohibited where wildlife is taken without a permit.
The concerns regarding constraints on organized shoots are not sufficiently explained for the TCT to make an informed comment. I have spoken with quite a few farmers about using groups of shooters and it seems to be very difficult to ensure safety. Shooters need to be highly trusted by the landowner and have proven experience and skills. DPIPWE needs to err on the side of greater safety for shooters and the general public.
If an organized shoot is aiming to protect a large crop, as is mentioned, it would probably be better for a farmer to contract professional shooters. I understand that contract shooters prefer small groups to ensure easier control, coordination and safety.
Muttonbird
Each year more than 900 permits are issued for recreational taking of muttonbirds. The TCT has serious concerns regarding the humaneness of this practice, particularly whether permit holders actually apply the preferred method for dispatching a muttonbird ‘Guidelines for the Humane Killing of Muttonbirds (Short-tailed Shearwater)’ that is included on the factsheet provided to licence applicants.
Despite many years of the TCT trying, DPIPWE has never indicated any interest in improving the humaneness of recreational muttonbirds, in particular how a bird is dispatched.
Over many years the TCT wrote to several ministers about the lack of any measures to check to see if applicants read and understood the guidelines and could actually apply them. While monitoring of actual practice in the field would be preferable, I understand this would be difficult. At the very least permit applicants should be required to acknowledge they have read and understood the guidelines and even better if they were required to pass a test showing they could apply the preferred method. These recommendations have never been adopted.
We understand that at least new applicants now have to acknowledge they have read the guidelines as a condition of receiving a permit, but the vast majority of applicants never have to do this.
These problems are compounded by the significant number of children who apply and receive licences and presumably take muttonbirds. Figures released by DPIPWE in 2015 showed that permits were issued to children as young as 2 and 3. While DPIPWE later advised that there may have been problems with the accuracy of the records in regard to ‘toddlers’ receiving permits, there was never any attempt to dispute that older children received permits. Based on figures provided by DPIPWE in 2015, between 2011and 2015, between 3 and 14 children each year aged from 5 to 14 years old received permits for shearwaters.
It is simply unacceptable to allow children as young as 5 to take and dispatch muttonbirds, both because they cannot effectively do it and that it would have a negative impact on a young child. Minimum age should be applied. While not speaking on behalf of Tasmanian Aboriginal people, I understand they apply a rule that their children cannot be involved in catching and dispatching a bird until they are ten years of age.
Some of the measures discussed could be introduced through changes to the Wildlife Regulations and perhaps some require a change to the act. Then TCT recommends that a new regulation is introduced that establishes a process for determining a person’s understanding and capacity to apply the guidelines for dispatching a muttonbird through passing a test using a dummy muttonbird. Alternatively that all applicants must sign a form stating that they have read, understood and can implement the guidelines. Furthermore, a minimum age of ten years must be introduced.
POSSESSING WILDLIFE
The TCT supports an amendment to the Wildlife Regulations to define a ‘fit and proper’ person to keep a wildlife exhibition facility.
Then TCT supports amendments to the Wildlife Regulations to place further limits on the keeping of reptiles and amphibians that are taken from the wild.
The TCT notes the point raised by stakeholders about ensuring people who catch or hold venomous snakes are suitably trained and apply acceptable safety practices. We would like to have more background about what if any complaints have been made and if they relate to people who relocate snakes from back yards. I understand that some of these people charge a fee so this should be considere in the discussion of this point. For example, should people be required to undertake formal training, e.g. a TAFE course, before being able to practice as a snake catcher and charge a fee?
Stakeholders have raised issues related to importing and possessing caged birds but the description is very vague and makes it difficult for the TCT to make an informed comment. However, as a general principle the TCT supports the maximum possible restriction on the species of birds or other fauna that can be imported (noting that this is not subject to this review). In regard to the Wildlife Regulations review, where higher risk species are allowed to be imported there must be far stricter controls on who can possess them and how they are contained, treated, transported and traded (if this is allowed) to ensure they cannot escape and breed. Requiring all such animals to be desexed or allowing only one gender to be kept would be a sensible safeguard against the likely escape and proliferation of some animals.
CARING FOR WILDLIFE
Stakeholders have raised a number of issues related to rescue and care of injured or orphaned wildlife, including: need for clarify around the definition of injured or orphaned wildlife; the need for those who rescue wildlife to respond quickly, negating the possibility of obtaining a permit; and issues dealing with feeding wildlife (which might occur after an injured or orphaned animal is released to the wild). While not ruling out specific changes to the regulations, the TCT suggests that the DPIPWE should investigate the introduction of a code of practice for keeping and caring for wildlife.
A quick Google search identifies Codes of Practice for keeping and caring for wildlife for most mainland states. While DPIPWE has on its web site the document ‘General Requirements for the Care and Rehabilitation of Injured and Orphaned Wildlife in Tasmania’, this seems to be a general guide only, has not been updated since 2012 and it has arguably regulatory impact. It is also uncertain how well recognized and accepted this is by wildlife carers. Codes of practice are usually required under law and must be kept up to date and relevant.
The TCT recommends that DPIPWE investigate the adoption of a Wildlife Carer’s Code of Practice. If there is general support from carers, wildlife experts and the general public, that the Wildlife Regulations are amended to prescribe the process for producing and reviewing code.
Certain practices such as keeping of wallabies and possums as pets should be prohibited and the regulations should be amended to clarify at what point caring for an animal stops and a permit to keep it s a pet is needed.
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
While acknowledging the concern that is stated, that firearms licences may be revoked due to convictions on unrelated offences and have unintended and disproportionate outcomes, any changes need to be done carefully so as to not be too flexible. The purpose of this law is to punish a person who has misused a firearm or in using that firearm committed other offences. If the farm hand threatened or committed an act of violence using a firearm in the work place, it might be seen to be appropriate to revoke their firearms licence and cause the loss of their employment.
In relation to claims that applicants may not recall the dates of relevant convictions, surely the records can be made available on request to the relevant compliance body. Police Tasmania are required to provide a copy of a person’s record of traffic convictions to prepare for a court appearance and a similar process could be development for applicants for wildlife permits.
CULTURAL PRACTICES OF TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
Due to time limitations we cannot comment on this particular issue at this time.
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTS
Due to time limitations, we cannot comment on this particular issue at this time.
Yours sincerely,
Peter McGlone
Director