Reducing feral camel impacts across remote Australia:

Australian Feral Camel Management Project

21st November 2013, Parliament House Theatre, Canberra

Session One: From Science to Solution Speakers: Tom Calma, AO – Chair Ninti One Glenn Edwards – Northern Territory Government Quentin Hart – Ninti One, Australian Feral Camel Management Project Roger Smith – Chair Australian Feral Camel Management Project Steering Committee

Defining the feral camel problem Glenn Edwards

Presentation outline 1. History of camels in Australia 2. Recognition that feral camels are a problem - Early research and survey work - Camel action plan workshop - Overview of DKCRC research

• First importation 1840, last importation 1907 • Domestic population peaked in 1922, size unknown~20,000 • Establishment of feral camels post 1920

1. History of camels in Australia

Mob of feral camels, Durham Downs Qld 1966

Early research Ecology and behaviour • Dörges and Heucke (1995,

2003) Diet, examined impacts on vegetation at different stocking rates

• Grigg et al. (1995), Edwards et al. (2001)

Movements

-

2. Recognition that feral camels are a problem

Early population survey work • 1969 McKnight questionnaire survey • 1980-83 Short et al. (1988) aerial SA, NT, WA

- 43,000 camels in Australia. Low precision. - WA 50%, NT 27%, SA 23%

• 1984, 1993, 2001 aerial NT only

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Num

ber

Camel action plan workshop

Alice Springs April 2005 • Debate over how many camels and whether there was a problem • Recommended development of integrated national approach to managing feral camels

Desert Knowledge CRC research 2006-2008

Aims

• Clarify distribution, abundance, movements and

population dynamics • Clarify key stakeholder perceptions • Evaluate impacts • Review the options available for managing these impacts • Make management recommendations

Key findings: population dynamics • Camels occupy 3.3M square km • Estimate of 953,000 camels in 2008 • 43% Aboriginal land, 22% pastoral land, 10%

conservation land, 25% crown land • Population doubling every 9 years

Key findings- perceptions Pastoral/conservation • Conservation- pest,

pastoral- pest and resource

• 84% of pastoral properties with camels engage in some form of management (mostly culling)

• Limited commercial harvest

• Woody weed control

Aboriginal • Culling seen as wasteful

but …..concerns over impacts

• Many saw camels as a resource = jobs

• Camel meat not widely utilised

• Little management undertaken (some fencing of waterholes)

• Limited commercial harvest

Key findings- impacts

Positive • Iconic species • Tourism • Historical perspective • Economic resource • Woody ‘weed’ control

Photos courtesy J. Brian 2005

Negative impacts- cultural, social (not costed)

• Road accidents

• Safety

• Disease risk

Negative impacts- economic • Estimated impact cost of

$7.15M annually for infrastructure damage and lost production on pastoral land alone

Negative impacts- environmental (not costed)

• Methane

2007- large scale movement of camels onto pastoral leases and Aboriginal settlements in western deserts

The relationship between the mean value of infrastructure damage reported by pastoral landholders over the period July 2005-June 2007 and the estimated mean density of feral camels on the property. Note: the figures are sample sizes. Range is standard error.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 >0.4

Density category (camels/km2)

Dam

age

cost

($/k

m2 )

74 14

11

98

Key findings- management options

• Available/used – humane destruction (culling) – commercial harvest – exclusion (limited application)

• Not used, not available or not appropriate – chemical, biological, fertility control

2008- the problem defined • Camels distributed over very large area (3.3M km2) • Camels very mobile and move over large areas • Camel population increasing • Camels have undesirable impacts above density of 0.1-0.2

camels/km2 • Camel density over large proportion of range (~30%) exceeds

threshold for undesirable impacts • Land owners/managers perceive a problem exists but views vary on what is best/acceptable management approach

• Market failure wrt commercial use

Key findings- management recommendations

• Zoned approach taking into account density (~imacts), landholder views and aspects of different management approaches

• Address issues underpinning market failure

• Manage to long-term target density of 0.1-0.2 camels/km2 at regional scales to reduce impacts

• Incorporate key assets to allow priority setting • Cross-jurisdictional and collaborative approach to

management needed

www.nintione.com.au