Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series ... · page 3 Feral Goat Management to...

Freecall 1800 032 101 Email: [email protected]

Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series No. 6

Feral Goat Management to achieve Healthy Groundcover: Discussion Paper

Feral Goat M

anagement in the W

estern NSW

Rangelands Series No. 6: Feral G

oat Managem

ent to achieve Healthy G

roundcover: Discussion Paper

page 1 Feral Goat Management to achieve Healthy Groundcover: Discussion Paper

Discussion paper developed by the Western Catchment Management Authority

Author: Grant, R.

This discussion paper can be cited as: Grant, R. (2012) Feral Goat Management to achieve Healthy Groundcover: Discussion Paper, Western Catchment Management Authority.

ISBN: 978-0-7313-3597-8

www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au

September 2012

Feral Goat Management to achieve Healthy Groundcover: Discussion Paper page 2

Table of contents

1. Discussion paper objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. The Western Catchment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Groundcover and total grazing pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. Investment in total grazing pressure management within the Western Catchment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. What is a feral goat? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6. The ecology and management of feral goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. The statutory and policy status of feral goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8. Trends in the population of goats in Western NSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

9. The goat meat industry and implications for groundcover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

10. The economics of feral goat management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

11. Implications for Western CMA programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

12. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Abbreviations

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts

KMP Kangaroo Management Plan

NRC Natural Resources Commission

NRM Natural resource management

RAP Rangeland Assessment Program

TGP Total grazing pressure


Discussion paper objectives1.

Groundcover is a critical component of healthy landscapes in the semi-arid landscapes of Western New South Wales. Adequate levels of groundcover are necessary in these environments to protect soils from wind and water erosion, to capture rainfall before it runs off as well as to create favourable conditions for plant growth or fauna habitat. In raw terms, poor groundcover leads to dust in east coast urban areas and declining grazing enterprise viability.

The degree of grazing pressure is a key factor in determining the amount of groundcover existing as pasture. While landholders can manage the grazing pressure of domestic stock on pastures, unmanaged grazers also have a significant impact on groundcover. In the absence of fences built to an adequate standard of containment, feral goats have become a widespread unmanaged grazing animal across large areas of Western NSW. Other unmanaged grazers include kangaroos and rabbits. The problem with mobile, unmanaged grazing animals is that pastures cannot be rested when necessary nor numbers of mouths adjusted to available pastures.

Since 2005, the Western Catchment Management Authority has invested public funds in partnership with Western Catchment landholders to improve the control of unmanaged goats. This discussion paper provides an overview of technical reports recently commissioned to provide an evidence base for further consideration of this issue.

Given the substantial public investment by the Western CMA in feral goat management, the purpose of this discussion paper is to evaluate the best available information in relation to the issue consistent with the knowledge component of the Standard for Natural Resource Management, “use of the best available knowledge to inform decisions in a structured and transparent manner” (Natural Resources Commission, 2007). The intended audience includes those people with a stake in Western Catchment natural resources management (NRM) investment, from policy makers to landholders.

The objective of this paper is to stimulate informed consideration of the feral goat issue in order to:ensure that the Western CMA Groundcover Program is based on best available evidence, consistent with the •substantial investment in goat management infrastructureseek direction for the most strategic approach to managing groundcover through feral goat management•develop greater policy and community-level awareness of the impact of feral goats on groundcover, biodiversity and •landscape function in the Western Catchment.

The management of feral goats is a complex issue. Widely-discussed aspects include:the extent to which feral goats influence groundcover and the implications for landscape stability, biodiversity and •sustainable pastoralismthe operation of a viable goat meat industry which leads to the landholder’s dilemma of deciding whether •unmanaged goats are a pest or a resourcethe dilemma of resolving public versus private benefits where Western CMA funds are allocated to assist in the •management of feral goats on private landsthe cost-benefit of various interventions funded by the Western CMA in terms of both scale and effectiveness•the substantial success of specific projects where well-managed total grazing pressure interventions have delivered •substantial groundcover, biodiversity and production benefitsthe lack of awareness of the total grazing pressure issue by policy makers, funding bodies and the general community•the limited reliable data quantifying the impacts of feral goats on pastoral productivity, landscape stability and •biodiversityinconsistent policy responses to feral goats across levels of government.•

This document draws from five expert reviews commissioned by the Western CMA in 2010. These reviews aggregated the best available knowledge on feral goats in Western NSW through both literature review and the analysis of new data. They are:

A review of knowledge relating to feral goat ecology and management•A review of the policy framework relating to feral goat management•The implications of the feral goat harvest industry for total grazing pressure management•An analysis of goat population trends based on survey data collected through the NSW Kangaroo Management •ProgramAn economic analysis of feral goat management measures.•


The full reports prepared from these reviews are available from the Western CMA website at: www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au

The Western CMA is convinced that an ongoing ’business-as-usual‘ approach is not satisfactory if Catchment Target 1 of the Western Catchment Action Plan 2006-2016 groundcover management aspirations are to be achieved (Western CMA 2007). This discussion paper and associated reports highlight that:

there is evidence of increasing feral goat populations and density•there is increasing evidence of substantial natural resource management and pastoral productivity benefits from feral •goat control and improved grazing management systemsthere are emerging opportunities for a managed goat-based grazing industry•effective management of grazing incorporating feral goat control must be a key component of regional drought and •climate change strategiesunmanaged grazing leads to decline in the natural resource as well as reduced options to manage invasive scrub or •create diversified, sustainable pastoral enterprises.

The Western Catchment2. The Western Catchment occupies 250,000 km² of semi-arid lands situated in the far north-west of New South Wales. The area is not a true catchment but rather a region covering parts of several large drainage basins. Over 95% of the Catchment consists of rangelands supporting intact native vegetation which are predominantly used for extensive grazing.

The issues of scale, seasonal variability and low biological productivity are primary considerations in the management of this landscape. These dictate that land managers have only low input measures such as the timing and intensity of grazing to manage their natural resources.

In October 2012 the Lower Murray Darling CMA was amalgamated into the Western and Murray CMAs.

The other five publications that comprise the Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series were written before October 2012 and as such refer to the previous Western and Lower Murray Darling areas.

WCMA MILPARINKA

TIBOOBURRA

WANAARING

WHITE CLIFFS

TILPA

WILCANNIA

LOUTH

BOURKE

FORDS BRIDGE

ENNGONIA WEILMORINGLE

GOODOOGA

SYDNEY

LIGHTNING RIDGE

BYROCK COOLABAH

CANBELEGO

NYMAGEE

IVANHOE

BROKEN HILL

MENINDEE

WALGETT BREWARRINA

COBAR

COLLARENEBRI

Darling


Catchment Management TargetsUnder the Catchment Management Authorities Act (2003) the Western Catchment Management Authority (CMA) is tasked with implementing natural resource management activities in order to achieve Catchment Management Targets. Catchment Target 1 of the Western Catchment Action Plan 2006-16 is “Quality and quantity of vegetation managed to maintain and/or improve designated cover capable of preventing soil erosion (i.e. designated cover greater than or equal to 40% )” (Western CMA 2007). Note that this region-wide target is conservative for eastern areas of the Catchment, aspirational for more arid western parts and is currently under review.

NSW Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management Catchment Management Authorities are required to implement their activities in accordance with the NSW Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management (Natural Resources Commission, 2007). The elements of the standard are:

Collection and use of knowledge:• Use of the best available knowledge to inform decisions in a structured and transparent manner

Determination of scale:• Management of natural resource issues at the optimal spatial, temporal and institutional scale to maximise effective contribution to broader goals, deliver integrated outcomes and prevent or minimise adverse consequences

Opportunities for collaboration:• Collaboration with other parties to maximise gains, share or minimise costs or deliver multiple benefits is explored and pursued wherever possible

Community engagement:• Implementation of strategies sufficient to meaningfully engage the participation of the community in the planning, implementation and review of natural resource management strategies and the achievement of identified goals and targets

Risk management:• Consideration and management of all identifiable risks and impacts to maximise efficiency and effectiveness, ensure success and avoid, minimise or control adverse impacts

Monitoring and evaluation:• Quantification and demonstration of progress towards goals and targets by means of regular monitoring, measuring, evaluation and reporting of organisational and project performance and the use of the results to guide improved practice

Information management:• Management of information in a manner that meets user needs and satisfies formal security, accountability and transparency requirements.

These elements set the planning and operational context for the on-ground programs operated by the Western CMA.

Photo 1: A trapyard in the Barrier Ranges near Broken Hill, funded by the Western CMA. Photo: Peter Elfes

Groundcover and total grazing pressure3.

Groundcover is the key driver of rangeland condition and an indicator of rangeland health. It influences landscape function in terms of wind and water erosion as well as the capture of runoff. Groundcover has consequent implications for drought preparedness, dust impacts on population centres and, to a lesser extent, sedimentation and water quality. Groundcover is a production resource for stock and plays a key role in biodiversity conservation, providing habitat and forage for fauna as well as promoting a diverse vegetation community.

Groundcover is pivotal in the critical issue of invasive scrub management, another significant natural resource management concern for the catchment. Invasive scrub problems develop after high rainfall years, when shrub seedlings germinate prolifically following prolonged wet conditions. Groundcover provides competition for germinating shrub seedlings and fuel for prescribed burning to thin their densities.

Total grazing pressure (TGP) is the combined influence of domestic faunal and feral grazing animals. Evidence that TGP is a criticial influence on groundcover in NSW rangelands is well documented. The grazing impact of feral goats, kangaroos and rabbits is additional to that of livestock and is an often underestimated complication to grazing management. Landholders possess the ability to manage the grazing pressure of domestic stock on groundcover but most lack control of the grazing activity of feral goats and marsupials. This is because both goats and kangaroos are highly mobile and unrestrained by conventional pastoral fencing. Consequently they can readily access paddocks that are being rested from domestic stock, rendering spelling or other approaches to groundcover management ineffective. Other than harvesting operations, there are no natural controls on feral goat and kangaroo populations.


Photo 2: Healthy groundcover in the Wanaaring area.

Investment in total grazing pressure management within 4. the Western Catchment

The Western CMA currently engages landholders through devolved grant funding programs to better manage groundcover in order to meet Catchment Target 1 2006-2016 (Western CMA 2007). Within the Groundcover Incentive Program, landholders typically enter into a cost-share contract involving the construction or improvement of property infrastructure to better control feral goats with the intent of achieving improved groundcover management. This infrastructure generally includes trapyards, the fencing of water points and mesh-type TGP fencing. Landholders are contracted to maintain this infrastructure and implement appropriate groundcover management over a period of ten years, including annual monitoring of outcomes.

A considerable sum of public funds has been invested in feral goat management through these incentive funding programs. Since 2004, the Western CMA has invested $9,362,276 across 284 projects involving feral goat management. A further 95 projects assessed as eligible remained unfunded as budgets were fully committed. Other projects were deemed ineligible. The most recent funding round in 2011 attracted 82 landholder applications, the vast majority of which were targeting feral goat management. A breakdown of project funding since 2004 is presented in Table 1.

Western CMA Funded Projects: Feral Goat Management

Trapyards on waterpointsNumber of projects with trapyards * 108Number of trapyards 352Area of influence (hectares) 981,193Funding amount $3,108,695

Total grazing pressure fencingNumber of projects with fencing * 176Length of fencing (includes new & upgrade) (km) 3,270Areas associated with fencing (hectares) # 834,572Funding amount $6,253,581

Total funding amount $9,362,276

Table 1: Western CMA investment in management of feral goats through trap yards and TGP fencing since 2004 (current September 2012).

* Note 1: There may be overlap between these projects. #. Note 2: Only grazing management projects, not high conservation value or riparian management

Table 1 demonstrates that control of the impact of feral goats is of concern to a significant proportion of landholders within the Western Catchment. 379 goat management projects have been submitted and assessed as eligible for funding in the period 2004-2012 from approximately 1000 landholdings within the catchment.


What is a feral goat?5.

For the purpose of this discussion paper, a “feral” goat is an “unmanaged” animal. This definition on the basis of management is consistent with the terms of the Threat Abatement Plan under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):

Unmanaged goats are “free-living and not subject to livestock husbandry”. In other words, they are not constrained by •fences to the degree necessary to manage groundcover.

Managed goats are those permanently restrained by fences or subject to husbandry. (DEWHA 2008b, p5)•

In this document the terms “feral’ and “unmanaged” are used interchangeably. However we recognise that in some contexts, the term ‘feral’ may refer to goats of feral origin but now confined by mesh fencing. Some may regard goats harvested by trapping as ‘managed’ goats. The goat industry often uses the term “rangeland goat” to label its feral-origin product. The terms “bush goat” and “Australian goat” are also used.

Photo 3: Feral or rangeland goats? This paper focuses on free-ranging goats that are not constrained by fences to the degree necessary to manage pastures and groundcover (Photo: Emily Newton)


The ecology and management of feral goats6.

EcologyGoats are highly-adaptable generalist herbivores. They are able to eat more browse with less grass and forbs than most sheep or cattle and are well-suited to surviving in shrubby, semi-arid rangelands. They have a limited amount of subcutaneous fat and are able to cope well with warm, semi-arid climates.

Unmanaged populations of feral goats usually only prosper in environments where they have access to large areas, have relatively low economic value and are protected from predators. In Australia, they occupy the sheep producing semi-arid pastoral areas in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales where they are protected from dingoes by barrier fencing or other controls. Protection from dingoes is a key issue determining their distribution. Large populations of feral goats are unknown overseas either due to their economic value or predation.

The preferred habitat of unmanaged goats is rough ridges and dense shrubby cover that assists in the evasion of predators and control activities. Increasing cover and browse associated with scrub encroachment and thickening may have assisted the expansion of the population of feral goats Western NSW since the 1950s.

Goats are able to utilise browse better than other stock. There is a popular view that they can survive on shrubs alone and are a ’bonus‘ to nominal property carrying capacities. However, the function of their rumen dictates that they must consume a mixed diet for adequate nutrition, balancing the protein and tannin intake from browse with adequate digestible energy intake from grasses and forbs (e.g. Provensa, 1995). Consequently they still eat grasses and forbs depending on availability and palatability. As Western NSW shrublands possess an abundance of nitrogen and protein in browse, the availability of digestible organic matter sourced from grasses may be the limiting factor in goat nutrition. This leads to high grazing pressures affecting groundcover where goat populations are uncontrolled and pastures not actively managed.

Goats need to drink every two to three days during summer but can derive some of their water requirements from feed. Currently, most pastoral zone fences are not goat-proof so unmanaged animals can migrate freely. Male feral goats have a home range up to 600 km², while females have a range of up to 190 km², but with a strong fidelity to a core area. GPS-collared goats are recorded as responding rapidly to disturbance such as mustering, travelling up to 20 km (D. Mathews, pers. comm.). Elsewhere goats have been recorded as travelling up to 80 km in a day. Evidence of regional migration routes across the Western Catchment, commonly suspected by landholders, is yet to be documented in literature.

Goats are social animals, living in matriarchal groups associated with an area, having loose associations with male groupings. Groups become smaller with good seasons or in response to disturbances such as mustering. Breeding patterns are primarily determined by shortening day length, but it appears that other environmental cues may override this control. Fecundity reaches a maximum when females are 21 months of age but possibly older experienced females contribute more to population increase. Does have a 150-day gestation period and can have up to three pregnancies in two years, each producing an average of 1.59 embryos.

Populations can therefore increase by up to 50% per annum but actual dynamics are unclear under the current feral harvest regime. An estimated off-take of 43% of the population per annum is required to maintain population stability.

Feral goats are relatively disease-free. However they are capable of carrying a range of bacterial, viral, protozoan and helminth agents including Q-fever. They are susceptible to number of emergency animal disease threats such as bluetongue and anthrax. Key biosecurity risk factors include their mobility and intermingling with domestic stock (Animal Health Australia, 2011).

The impacts of unmanaged goatsThe Western CMA has a vital interest in the improvement of groundcover across the Western Catchment consistent with Catchment Target 1 2006-2016 (Western CMA 2007). In addition to its role as livestock fodder, groundcover provides numerous ecosystem services including the minimisation of erosion and dust, the facilitation of soil moisture infiltration, important habitat for fauna and fuel for prescribed burns. Approximately 60% vegetative groundcover is necessary for the prevention of soil erosion, whereas Rangeland Assessment Program monitoring data indicates that many sites support 40% cover or less in most years.


The major cause of poor groundcover within the Catchment is the failure to manage total grazing pressure, regardless of herbivore type. Where herbivores are unmanaged, that is, their numbers and movement not constrained by fencing or other practices, pastoralists are deprived of the capacity to manage groundcover. Both goats and kangaroos behave as highly mobile, unmanaged herbivores across large areas of the Western Catchment and comprise a major component of total grazing pressure.

Other environmental impacts specific to unmanaged goats include:

reduced landscape function resulting in erosion and increased runoff through both grazing pressure and soil surface •disturbance

selective grazing pressure on native grasslands, changing plant composition from perennial species to herbaceous •annual species

browsing pressure on palatable native trees and shrubs and prevention of regeneration through removal of seedling •or sucker growth

direct competition with native fauna such as the brush-tailed and yellow-footed rock wallabies for forage, water and •shelter and disturbance of specific sites such as malleefowl nests (see Photo 6).

the fouling of drought refugia waterholes and other natural water sources as well as trampling impacts on mound •springs.

Unmanaged goats present a threat to 94 threatened native species across NSW, affecting 33 species in the Western Catchment. Only the red fox and feral cat affect more species at risk. This is partly due to the large and diverse number of plant species palatable to goats (Coutts-Smith et al., 2007).

The negative economic and social impacts of unmanaged goats include:

direct competition with commercial livestock for forage resources•

increased susceptibility of landscapes and pastoral enterprises to drought•

the risk of acting as an uncontrolled disease vector that associates with domestic stock. In the case of a livestock •disease emergency, unmanaged goats would act as a disease reservoir.

damage to cultural heritage sites including rock art•

damage to pastoral infrastructure, primarily fencing•

decline in land condition with flow-on pastoral productivity loss•


Photo 4: Unmanaged goats compete with yellow-footed rock wallabies for food, water and shelter. Photo: Bruce Thomson/ANTPhoto.com

Photo 6: Direct impact on fauna. Unmanaged goat disturbance on an active malleefowl nesting mound, captured by remote camera.

Photo 5: Significant Aboriginal rock art at Mutawintji Historic Site has been damaged by unmanaged goats. The artwork is now protected but the lower part of the circular painting symbolising a nearby waterhole has been permanently erased.


TGP management practicesAchieving the control of total grazing pressure is critical to meeting the groundcover outcomes of Western CMA Catchment Target 1 2006-2016 (Western CMA 2007). Landholders can readily manage the grazing pressure of domestic livestock through traditional practices. However, pasture management including matching numbers to available feed and implementing seasonal or strategic rest periods is not feasible where other herbivores can access paddocks at will. Where unmanaged feral goat populations exist, the management of adequate groundcover is dependent on firstly gaining control of their movement and numbers.

The main control practices applicable within the Western Catchment include ground and aerial-based mustering, trapping on waters, the erection of goat-proof (TGP) perimeter fencing and shooting from the ground or air. Due to the economic value of goats, live capture is the preferred option in all but the most challenging terrain. Novel approaches including animal recognition sensors on trap facilities and the use of GPS-collared ’Judas‘ goats are available but not in general use primarily due to cost.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that mustering and trapping approaches implemented alone fail to produce lasting groundcover improvements in areas with high populations of goats. This is due to rapid re-colonisation from adjacent areas. However, mustering and trapping are the best available options in areas of rugged terrain where TGP fencing is difficult to install and maintain. They are also necessary to remove goats from areas where perimeter TGP fencing has been installed.

Trapping on waterpoints has some specific issues:

A significant proportion of trapped goats are often ’underweight‘ (i.e. less than 25 kg). Landholders are faced with •the decision of whether to ’grow out‘ underweights in a TGP-fenced goat paddock (if available), destroy or release these animals. Often underweight feral goats are released from traps, contributing to ongoing grazing pressure and population growth.

Traps often detain non-target species, especially kangaroos and emus which are difficult to manage with the goats.•

Total grazing pressure perimeter fencing, either based on hinged joint-type mesh or Westonfence-type electric systems, has proven to be a reliable method of gaining control of unmanaged goats. Outstanding improvements in groundcover have been achieved where fencing has enabled the implementation of rest periods as part of a grazing system, regardless of whether rangeland goats or other stock are using pastures. However TGP fencing may have perverse outcomes where paddocks are used to hold goats with inadequate grazing management resulting in over-use of pastures. Additionally, TGP fencing may interrupt the movement patterns of kangaroos and emus.

The benefits of TGP management Pasture monitoring suggests that TGP fencing in conjunction with rotational grazing management systems can result in rapid improvements in groundcover (see photo 3). Table 1 summarises results obtained by McMurtrie et al. (2010), comparing groundcover on representative areas subject to feral goat trapping alone with adjacent TGP fenced areas where goats have been rotationally grazed. Values indicate total vegetation groundcover (excluding litter) over three years across three sites in drainage flat areas. Sites 1 and 2, where goats are managed by trapping, have significantly less groundcover than Site 4. The latter has been managed with perimeter goat-proof fencing grazed rotationally by goats since the fence was completed in 2007.

YearHarvesting operation area TGP-controlled area

Site 1- drainage flat Site 2- drainage flat Site 4- drainage flatTotal % veg cover ex. litter Total % veg cover ex. litter Total % veg cover ex. Litter

2007 3.0 7.0 8.0

2009 6.0 45.0 96.0

2010 2.5 21.1 77.9

Table 2: Groundcover comparison between sites harvested with goat traps and use of paddock perimeter TGP fencing (McMurtrie et al. ,2010).

Note: Site 3 omitted as inconsistent land type.


Similar results have been obtained by Waters et al (in press), who found that TGP management in association with rotational grazing achieved up to twice the groundcover, twice the plant species diversity and over six times the pasture biomass in comparison with neighbouring areas with free access by feral goats.

Further information on the ecology and management of feral goats can be found in:

Kimball, N.P. & Chuk, M. (2011). Feral Goat Ecology and Management in the Western NSW Rangelands: A review, Western Catchment Management Authority. ISBN 978-0-7313-3588-6 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

Photo 7: Response to TGP fencing and grazing management. To the left, a paddock rotationally-grazed with Boer goats showing perennial grass recovery. To the right, an area with open access to unmanaged goats, periodically removed through waterpoint

trapping.


The statutory and policy status of feral goats7.

What is the legal status of goats in the Western Catchment? Who owns them, who is responsible for their welfare and who is responsible for their management when populations adversely affect groundcover, biodiversity or other values?

LegislationAs previously indicated, a feral goat is an animal “free-living and not subject to livestock husbandry”. Ownership is an important issue as it defines who has the right to harvest unmanaged goats as well as responsibility for care and welfare of the animals. Under NSW legislation unmanaged goats are unprotected fauna and are therefore neither the property of the Crown or the holder of the land on which they are found. However, there is a “state” of ownership in the sense that access to land for harvesting or control of feral goats is at the discretion of the owner or occupier of the area on which they are present (DEWHA, 2008). Goats “living in the wild” are defined as game animals under the NSW Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 which requires a game hunting licence for taking animals on public land.

Competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999. A Threat Abatement Plan has been developed under this legislation, which establishes a national framework and priorities for coordinating responses to managing the biodiversity impacts of feral goats. It obligates the control of goats on Commonwealth land but is not actively funded or implemented on other tenures.

Competition and Habitat Degradation by Feral Goats, Capra hircus, Linnaeus 1758 is also listed as a Key Threatening Process in Schedule 3 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC Act) 1995. This declaration places some responsibility on the NSW Government for the reduction of the impact of goats on biodiversity through the development of a Threat Abatement Plan to strategically support control programs. However, as yet no Threat Abatement Plan has been developed and any such plan will likely focus on conservation lands rather than broad landscapes. Under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 there is a requirement for the management of feral species on national park estate, as specified under Plans of Management.

The Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 provides for the management of pest animals on privately and publicly-owned lands through pest control and eradication orders. However, as unmanaged goats are presently not declared pests under the Act, there is no obligation for control on freehold or leasehold lands. General lease conditions under the Western Lands Act 1901 require that landholders keep their leases free of vermin as directed by the Commissioner. However unmanaged goats are not currently subject to such a declaration as vermin.

The strongest statutory control on feral goat management in Western NSW lies in Section 18D(d) of the Western Lands Act 1901. This section establishes the authority of the Western Lands Commissioner to direct the protection of leased land from overstocking or soil erosion as recommended by the Commissioner for Soil Conservation and could potentially be used in the case of land damaged by unmanaged goat impact. Section 18A of this Act and associated lease conditions also require lessees to regularly maintain all boundary fences in a stock-proof condition. Recommended conditions for Fencing Orders under Section 18A place minimum standards on boundary fencing for classes of domestic stock including “managed” feral goats and alternative sheep breeds that are part of a lessee’s enterprise. However, this does not require a landholder to erect and maintain boundary fencing that will hold “unmanaged” feral goats.

The welfare of feral goats is subject to the NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 when their movement has been restricted, such as when confined in a trap paddock. Landholders are also responsible for the treatment of uncontrolled feral goats on their land to ensure that no deliberate harm occurs and that there is notification of any diseases that may be evident. Such provisions apply to wildlife as well, in instances such as marsupials becoming confined in trap paddocks.

The legal status of feral goats in NSW is markedly different to the situation in all other states, where the animal has been declared a pest species. Each of the other states has a different emphasis on the pest status of goats in terms of impacts on biodiversity, primary production and land protection. In both South Australia and Western Australia, there are statutory controls on the domestication of goats in rangeland areas.


Policies, strategies and codes of practiceAt the Federal level, key policies relevant to feral goat management include the Australian Pest Animal Strategy and the Australian Pest Animal Research Program. The latter identifies feral goats as a priority pest species but does not currently allocate resources to specifically address management of this issue.

The NSW Government has several policies which encompass feral goat management. The NSW Invasive Species Plan 2008-2015 provides a framework for the coordinated management of pests across all land tenures with a focus on the principles of planning, effective management and ethics. Linked to this plan are Regional Pest Management Strategies 2008-2011 in place for all National Parks and Wildlife Regions. In Western NSW, these involve the Far West and Upper Darling Regional Strategies and have a focus on goat control to minimise impacts on biodiversity and park values.

Several non-binding codes of practice encompassing animal welfare also have implications for management actions directed at the control of feral goats. The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy 2008 establishes an overall framework for the humane management of feral goats and wildlife. The Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Feral Goats (Sharp and Saunders, 2004) and the NSW Vertebrate Pest Control Manual (DI&I, 2008) provide advice on the most humane, target specific and effective control measures for feral goats. These codes should underpin the on-ground application of any feral goat management projects undertaken by the Western CMA.

Further information on the legislation and policies influencing the management of feral goats can be found in:

Kerle, A. (2011) Review of Feral Goat Regulatory and Strategic Framework. Western Catchment Authority. ISBN 978-0-7313-3918-1 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)


Photo 8: The fenceline effect is obvious on this Cobar area property. TGP fencing protects the paddock on the left from unwanted grazers.

Goat population trends in Western NSW8.

Is the density and extent of unmanaged goats increasing within the Western Catchment?

Experience from the Western CMA Groundcover Incentives Program has been that the interest from landholders for assistance in controlling unmanaged goats is widespread and increasing. Western CMA recently commissioned a review of published and unpublished information on the distribution of feral goats in Western NSW as well as new estimates of abundance based on aerial survey data. The data was derived from aerial surveys of feral goats coincident with counts of kangaroos undertaken by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Kangaroo Management Program (KMP) over the past 19 years (1992-2010). It was analysed using newly-calculated correction factors for goats in Western NSW environments.

Key findings of the investigations include:

Goat populations have increased since the early 1970s and this period has seen the development of the •commercial harvest industry. Western NSW comprises 25% of the national distribution of goats but has the highest densities.

Analysis of aerial survey data indicates that the mean annual density of feral goats in Western NSW between 1993 •and 2012 was 2.83 goats per km2 (range 1.14 – 5.61 goats per km2). The median annual density was 2.58 goats per km2. These are underestimates due to methodological reasons.

The goat population has generally been increasing since 1999. The rate of removal of goats for human •consumption has contributed significantly to overall mortality since 1992 but rates of increase were mostly positive in that period. Note that during the period 2002-09, drought conditions prevailed across the Western Catchment and domestic stock numbers are reported to have declined.

Corrected feral goat abundance estimates ranged from a low of 521,458 ± 45,523 in 1999 to a high of 2,573,562 ± •198,613 in 2008. The abundance of feral goats in 2010 was 2,533,090 ± 181,394 Figure 1(Ballard et al., 2011). Data acquired subsequent to the Ballard report suggests the population reached 3 million in 2011 (P. Fleming pers. comm.).

Figure 1: Goat abundance estimates for the KMP survey area, 1992-2010 (Ballard et al., 2011)


The highest densities of goats generally occur in the central part of Western NSW, west of Cobar and east of White •Cliffs. Year to year densities vary significantly across the Western Catchment (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2: Average density of goats, 1993-2009 (P. Fleming, pers. comm., 2011)

Figure 3: Trends in goat abundance in each 1-degree survey block between 1993 and 2010 (Ballard et al, 2011)


Based on the calculated average rate of increase and similar conditions to the study period, the goat population in •the Western Rangelands of NSW will double by 2021 (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Goat population trend predictions based on a stable population, the average rate of increased observed and the maximum exponential rate of increase (Ballard et al., 2011).

Insufficient goat ownership data was available to enable subtraction from the aerial survey estimates. There is •difficulty in distinguishing feral animals from those under management using aerial survey techniques. However, other information gathered from a range of sources to confirm the population “under management” indicates that the proportion of actively managed goats is relatively minor in the context of overall numbers. In the natural resource context, the critical management issue is whether the movement of goats is sufficiently controlled to permit groundcover management.

The accuracy of actual population estimates may be influenced by survey techniques and correction factors are •conservative by design, biased to underestimation. However, data trends across time are robust due to consistency of survey approach.

Further information on feral goat populations in the Western Catchment can be found in:

Ballard, G., Fleming, P., Melville, G., West, P., Pradhan, U., Payne, N., Russell, B. and Theakston, P. (2011) Feral goat population trends in Western New South Wales Rangelands. Unpublished final report to the Western CMA, May 2011’ with “Western Catchment Management Authority. (NSW Department of Primary Industries: Orange) ISBN-978-0-7313-3931-0 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

Feral goats are widely distributed across the Australian rangelands where sheep production is the primary land use and wild dog or dingo predation is controlled. Population trends from Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and NSW derived from survey data and other sources have been collated by Pople and Froese (2012) to gain a national perspective of the issue. This data suggests that the Australian feral goat population has grown from 1.4 million in 1997 to 4.1 million in 2008 and 3.3 million in 2010. A caveat on these estimates lies in the difficulty of distinguishing managed goats from feral stock during aerial surveys of rangeland areas, but the authors conclude that the extent of misidentification is low.

From this review, the increasing trend in the feral goat population across Western NSW since 1999 is markedly different to the dynamics evident in the other states, where numbers remained relatively stable or declined over the same period. The proportion of the Australian feral goat population residing in NSW increased from 48% in 2007 to 70% in 2010.


The direct impact of increasing goat numbers on Western Catchment vegetation is unclear due to a lack of systematic broadscale monitoring. Averaged values from 21 Rangeland Assessment Program (RAP) monitoring sites within the Cobar Peneplain provide a guide to groundcover trends in the area of highest goat density. These demonstrate a declining trend in pasture cover over the past 22 years (Figure 5). Peaks in groundcover resulting from high rainfall seasons in 1990-91, 2000 and 2010-11 have declined. Unfortunately the relative roles of prevailing seasonal conditions, invasive native scrub and unmanaged grazing pressure cannot be segregated in this data. None of these RAP sites were protected from free-ranging goats.

Cobar Peneplain Bioregion - Vegetation Cover

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Surface Cover (%)

Figure 5: Pasture cover trend in the Cobar Peneplain bioregion based on RAP site measurements. Limited site data is available for 2006-07 and 2009-10 (Source: Western CMA).

Photo 9: Pasture and groundcover management requires the adjustment of grazing pressure to available feed and periods of rest from stocking. Landholders can only manage groundcover if the movement of goats can be controlled.


The goat meat industry and implications for groundcover9.

Many Western NSW landholders have kept their business viable during drought and periods of depressed livestock or wool prices through the harvesting of unmanaged feral goats. They provide an opportunistic income source with minimal input costs.

There is a healthy export market for Australian rangeland goats. Australia is the largest exporter of goat meat in the world and in many markets there is a preference for the type of product that is produced by rangeland enterprises. Ferguson (2011) details the history, current extent and considerable potential of the goat meat market which is primarily based on rangeland-sourced stock. Western NSW is the largest source of feral and managed goats supplying this industry.

The Western CMA seeks to encourage the ongoing development of the goat meat industry as a major contributor to the economic health of the catchment. To achieve groundcover and biodiversity targets, however, the Western CMA’s interest is in the development of managed production systems that incorporate total grazing pressure management based on controlled use and periods of rest from grazing. Such systems offer improved consistency of supply and quality of product to the overall industry.

Specific aspects of the harvesting component of the goat meat industry are of particular concern in relation to groundcover management:

Goats that are less than 25 kg are considered as underweight by the processing industry and there is a limited •demand for these animals. Consequently landholders trapping young animals are faced with either releasing these or placing them in a TGP-fenced paddock (if available) for growing-out. Destroying them is not a realistic option. Feedback from landholders suggests that up to 60% of trapped goats are underweight and released in the Cobar district (P. Theakston, pers. comm..). The released goats have significant breeding potential and perpetuate the unmanaged feral goat population at large.

Currently the price of goats is the key driver of the number of animals delivered to processors rather than natural •resource management factors such as groundcover management.

Grazing management remains a key factor. Where landholders aggregate or grow-out feral goats in TGP-fenced •paddocks, there is a risk of overgrazing especially through the ability of these animals to survive through broad dietary preference. However, this risk exists with all classes of stock if the parameters of grazing are inappropriate for the landscape.

Further information on the feral goat industry within the Western Catchment can be found in:

Ferguson, C. (2012) The Feral Goat Industry and Implications for Groundcover, Western Catchment Management Authority ISBN 978-0-7313-3539-8 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)


Photo 10: In many markets there is a preference for rangeland-sourced goats, such as these from the Cobar area.

The economics of feral goat management10.

Is the control of unmanaged feral goats by trapping or TGP fencing a financially viable option for Western Catchment landholders? Should public funding support the implementation of measures to control unmanaged goats?

A recent economic analysis has examined the financial outcomes from various approaches to managing feral goats based on enterprises in the Cobar, Bourke and Broken Hill areas. The analysis investigated the economics of:

enterprises harvesting goats on an opportunistic basis including the running of domestic livestock, with capital •investment to maximise capture and turnoff

enterprises running domestic livestock including in a TGP-fenced paddock to grow-out underweight feral goats that •have been trapped, both with and without a corresponding adjustment to domestic livestock numbers

enterprises using a TGP-fenced paddock for livestock grazing•

enterprises where total grazing pressure has been fully controlled by TGP fencing•

enterprises where no goat control was implemented.•

Representative whole farm models and benefit-cost analysis methods were calibrated using budget and stocking information generated through consultation workshops with landholders. Alternative scenarios were evaluated over a 20-year time frame and assessed for sensitivity to changes in feral goat price and population density. The results suggest:

The opportunistic harvesting of feral goats is a profitable enterprise in all districts. Investment in capital infrastructure •such as traps to maximise turnoff improves profitability. Public investment in this activity through CMA incentives programs cannot be justified.

The establishment of a goat paddock, with or without a corresponding reduction in domestic stock numbers, is also •profitable and supports the capital cost involved. Trapping into a goat paddock with reduced domestic stock grazing pressure had the highest net present value. On the other hand Ferguson (2011) suggests that there is a significant risk that such paddocks can be overstocked with consequent loss of groundcover and perennial vegetation. Public funding is therefore not justified for this activity.

Investment in TGP-fenced paddocks for the grazing of domestic stock grazing, excluding unmanaged goats, is •financially viable only if directed to better quality land types. The financial benefit is modest in comparison with the harvest scenarios, especially the establishment of a goat paddock, unless associated with increased productivity in terms of domestic stock carrying capacity.

TGP boundary fencing is not an economic option if the increase in domestic stock carried is only equivalent to the •number of goats removed. However, a breakeven point or even comparable returns to the best harvest option is achievable if improved grazing management practices that result in improved carrying capacity are implemented. This is likely if grazing systems incorporating periods of rest are implemented. Property-scale goat management has efficiencies over paddock-scale approaches for public good outcomes such as improved groundcover and biodiversity. Given that on the basis of this analysis there is a ‘borderline’ private benefit in TGP boundary fencing, there is a case for public investment to provide financial incentives for landholders adopting this approach.

Landholders who choose to do nothing to control existing unmanaged goat populations will be consistently losing •money, no matter where they are within the Western Catchment. In addition to the loss of an opportunistic income stream, unmanaged goats impact on the profitability of other livestock enterprises and may have a hidden cost in declining land condition and productivity.

The economics of all control scenarios are more sensitive to changes in the goat price than to goat population •density. Consequently, land condition issues associated with high goat population densities are likely to be a lesser consideration in producer decisions on harvesting activities.

Further information on the feral goat industry within the Western Catchment can be found in:

Khairo, S. and Hacker, R. (2011). Economic analysis of feral goat control within the Western NSW Rangeland. Western CMA. ISBN: 978-0-7313-3932-7 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)


Implications for Western CMA programs11. The Western CMA currently addresses natural resource management issues on private lands by providing incentive funding for landholders to undertake specific projects based on contracted cost-sharing agreements. The landscape outcomes of these projects must meet Catchment Targets and the priorities of funding bodies. Groundcover Program incentives are the principal avenue for addressing feral goat management, principally through developing fencing infrastructure to a point where total grazing pressure management can be implemented. TGP fencing is also funded to a lesser degree through Riparian and Pest Management Programs.

The key requirements of the most recent (2011) Groundcover Program incentives funding round included:

A clear project plan and specification.• Proposals were assessed for eligibility and then ranked on a basis of likely outcomes and cost effectiveness by an assessment panel. An important consideration is the relationship of the proposal to longer-term property development. Future incentive funding rounds will require a linkage to a strategic property plan.

A funding ratio of 1:1 (proponent: CMA). • The value of Western CMA projects is leveraged by the input of proponent funding at various ratios depending on the balance of private and public benefit. Western CMA investment in Groundcover Program projects is leveraged with a funding ratio of 1:1, the matching funding recognising both the potential private gain in pastoral productivity and the public good of improved biodiversity.

A goat management plan.• Proponents were required to have a clear plan for managing the grazing impact of feral goats with a view to improving groundcover.

A fencing design.• The standard ensures that minimum levels of goat control effectiveness are in place based on evaluation of previous project outcomes. Only upgrades of existing fencing are eligible where boundary fencing comprises part of the project as a stock-proof fence is required by statutory measures. Adjoining neighbours must be consulted where projects involve boundary fencing.

Trapyards.• While these facilities were previously funded, trapyards were only eligible for funding in the 2011 incentives round where they were located within a TGP-fenced perimeter or were specifically necessary in terrain where fencing was impractical. This is because in areas with free-roaming feral goats, trapyards have proven to have high private benefit through harvest income but limited groundcover outcomes.

Project area.• To meet funding body requirements of achieving measurable outcomes within program timeframes, fencing proposals were only considered if they attained TGP perimeter closure of project areas within 12 months. Ensuring that landholders have the capacity to complete projects within the 12 month timeframe is an important risk management consideration in acquitting program funding. On the other hand, this requirement limits the size of fencing projects to individual paddocks whereas boundary perimeter fencing may be a more strategic direction. Paddock-sized projects (e.g. 500-1000 hectares) may be useful to demonstrate the advantages of TGP management to landholders who are new to the concept. However small TGP-fenced areas face the risk of inappropriate management as goat paddocks or depots. Under this type of management, groundcover outcomes are often compromised. The high private benefit of such enterprises is also incongruous with the investment of public NRM funding

Project timeframe.• Incentive contracts commit landholders to maintaining project outcomes for a period of ten years from the completion of infrastructure construction. In the case of Groundcover Program contracts, this requires landholders to manage the project area for improved groundcover levels, nominally above the Catchment Target of 40%.

Monitoring.• All project proponents are required to undertake annual monitoring as a basis for documenting project outcomes. Total grazing pressure management projects commit landholders to installing photopoints both within and external to project areas as well as measuring groundcover along step point transects. Monitoring requirements are tiered according to project value.

The information presented in this document has several implications for this model of funding feral goat management:

Unmanaged goats have a range of impacts across parts of the NSW rangelands affecting both private and public •concerns. An increasing population trend suggests that these impacts may be increasing and that current levels of NRM investment and harvest industry activity are ineffective in managing the issue.


In contrast to other states, there are few statutory or policy instruments covering the management of feral goats •in the NSW rangelands. In the absence of other measures, NRM incentives provide a positive mechanism to encourage and support landholders addressing undesirable impacts from goat populations.

There is an economic argument for the funding of property perimeter scale TGP fencing as this approach has •marginal private benefit but potentially substantial public benefit. Fencing at the property rather than paddock-level also has cost efficiencies and is likely to be a more strategic approach to a landscape scale problem. However, landscape-scale projects may require reconsideration of funding timelines or permit a staged approach to attaining perimeter closure based on an agreed property plan. Conversely, paddock-scale TGP fencing projects, although more readily implemented, carry an occasional risk of being overstocked as goat holding areas rather than managed for groundcover outcomes.

A similar argument for public investment also applies to paddock-level TGP fencing where the area is used for •managed grazing of domestic stock. While this lacks the scale advantages of property perimeter fencing, it provides opportunities for landholders to explore TGP management without large commitment.

Other goat-based enterprises including mustering, the construction of trap facilities and the development of TGP-•fenced paddocks for aggregating or growing-out underweight animals are economically attractive. As such, they are inappropriate projects for public NRM investment. Small-scale TGP-fenced areas stocked with goats have a risk of being inappropriately managed for groundcover outcomes.

Specific research gaps exist in documenting the outcomes of TGP management as it has been implemented •within the Western Catchment over the past five years. Scientifically-robust monitoring of project areas is necessary to define the groundcover and biodiversity gains attained by innovative landholders in order to redefine management benchmarks.


Photo 11: Total grazing pressure fencing enables land managers to increase control over grazing by stock, native and feral animals.

Recommendations12.

The material in this discussion paper and the associated reports informs several recommendations for the strategic direction of the Western CMA in addressing the issue of the impact of unmanaged goats on natural resources within the Western Catchment. These are presented in the framework of the Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management outlined in Section 1 of this discussion paper.

Collection and use of knowledgeThat Western CMA recognises that a sustainable goat-meat industry is an important component of the regional •economy. However, to achieve environmental and groundcover outcomes, production systems based on managed stock rather than the opportunistic harvest of free-ranging feral goats are necessary.

That the core issue is one of appropriate grazing management including the matching of stock numbers to available •feed and the provision of pasture rest periods. Many landholdings in the Catchment do not have appropriate infrastructure and management systems to control and manage grazing where goats are significant component of stocking pressure.

That effective management of grazing pressure incorporating feral goat control must be a fundamental component •of regional natural resource management plans. Unmanaged grazing reduces options to implement improvements in goat husbandry as well as invasive native scrub management, drought preparedness, adaptation to climate change, enterprise diversification and the conservation of biodiversity or cultural heritage.

That there is a significant knowledge gap in understanding the financial implications of transitioning a pastoral •enterprise from opportunistic goat harvesting to a managed grazing system. Economic analysis of this transition could be pivotal in promoting a more sustainable enterprise model for western NSW rangelands.

That landholder innovation and knowledge is a key driver of change in the Western Catchment and is a good •investment for public funds. Recent progress in grazing management and the improvement of pasture condition through control of goats has arisen through landholder innovation rather than agency research. Such innovation is usually at a suitable level for ready adoption by the wider landholder community.

Determination of scale That landscape or property-scale approaches to total grazing pressure fencing will be more strategic and cost-•effective than paddock-scale measures. Future incentive funding for goat control should be framed on this basis and could reduce the perverse grazing management outcomes occasionally arising from paddock-sized projects.

Opportunities for collaborationThat current knowledge suggests that there is a significant public benefit in providing publicly-funded incentives to •landholders for the erection on total grazing pressure fencing together with the implementation of improved grazing systems. Economic analysis indicates that while such systems are likely to be quite profitable, there is a significant initial financial obstacle to their adoption. Publicly-funded incentives can lessen this barrier. Conversely, low input opportunistic harvesting enterprises involving mustering or trapping goats are profitable but provide limited natural resource management benefits. This profitability is a barrier to positive change in land management.

That a closer relationship between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Western CMA in managing goats on •park estate is desirable. Presently there are ongoing programs to control unmanaged goats on reserves and these could be integrated into broader programs to manage grazing pressures.

That building collaboration with industry groups, State and Federal agencies and the landholder community towards •a strategy for managing total grazing pressure in western NSW is warranted. Such a strategy would encompass the issue of unmanaged goats in the broader context of achieving landscape-scale improvement in groundcover.

That opportunities for collaborating with interstate organisations should be pursued as similar total grazing pressure •issues exist in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland.


Community engagement That increased efforts are necessary to improve policy and community-level awareness of the impact of unmanaged •goats on biodiversity, landscape function and pastoral productivity in the Western Catchment. In general the issue is poorly-recognised outside of the catchment and lack of understanding compounds a perception that the region is drought prone, has low biodiversity value and is marginal for pastoralism.

Risk management: That evidence of a markedly increasing population and density of unmanaged goats and lack of regional-scale •progress towards 2006-16 Catchment Target 1 groundcover targets suggests a ’business-as-usual‘ approach to addressing feral goat management is not satisfactory (Western CMA 2007). Region-wide measures are required to improve grazing management in relation to free-ranging unmanaged goats.

Monitoring and evaluation:That there is increasing evidence of substantial natural resource management and pastoral productivity benefits •from controlling feral goats using total grazing pressure-style fencing in conjunction with implementing grazing management systems incorporating pasture rest periods. Quantification of these benefits in a scientifically-robust manner is a priority to validate this approach.

Information management:No recommendation.•



Back Cover: Feral goats in the Barrier Ranges north of Broken Hill. Photo: Peter Elfes

References

Animal Health Australia (2011). Wild Animal Response Strategy (Version 3.3). Australian Veterinary Emergency Plan (AUSVETPLAN), Edition 3, Primary Industries Ministerial Council, Canberra, ACT.

Ballard, G., Fleming, P., Melville, G., West, P., Pradhan, U., Payne, N., Russell, B. and Theakston, P. (2011). Feral Goat Population Trends in Western New South Wales Rangelands. Western Catchment Management Authority. (NSW Department of Primary Industries: Orange) ISBN-978-0-7313-3931-0 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

Coutts-Smith, A.J., Mahon, P.S., Letnic, M. and Downey, P.O. (2007). The threat posed by pest animals to biodiversity in New South Wales. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats, DEWHA, Canberra.

Ferguson, C. (2012) The Feral Goat Industry and Implications for Groundcover, Western Catchment Management Authority ISBN 978-0-7313-3539-8 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

Kerle, A. (2011) Review of Feral Goat Regulatory and Strategic Framework. Western Catchment Authority. ISBN 978-0-7313-3918-1 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

Khairo, S. and Hacker, R. (2011). Economic analysis of feral goat control within the Western NSW Rangeland. Western CMA.ISBN: 978-0-7313-3932-7 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

Kimball, N.P. & Chuk, M. (2011). Feral Goat Ecology and Management in the Western NSW Rangelands: A review, Western Catchment Management Authority. ISBN 978-0-7313-3588-6 (www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au)

McMurtrie, A., Sandow, J. and Theakston, P. (2010). A comparative analysis of two feral goat management methods commonly used in the Cobar district to restore native groundcover http://www.austrangesoc.com.au/userfiles/file/2010_ARS_conf/McMurtie%20et%20al%20new.pdf

Natural Resources Commission (2007) An introduction to the standard for quality natural resource management for everyone involved in NRM Document No. D07/2826 ISBN: 978 1 921050 34 3

Pople, T. and Froese, J. (2012) Distribution, abundance and harvesting of feral goats in the Australian rangelands 1984-2011 Invasive Plants & Animals Science, Biosecurity Queensland, DEEDI Final report to the ACRIS Management Committee February 2012

Provenza, F. D. (1995) Post-ingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manage. 48: 2-17.

Waters, C., Melville, G., McMurtrie, A., Smith, W., Atkinson, T. and Alemseged, Y. (in press) The influence of grazing management and total grazing pressure fencing on ground cover and floristic diversity in the semi-arid rangelands. Proceedings 17th Australian Rangeland Society Conference, Kununurra, WA

Western CMA (2007) Western Catchment Action Plan 2006 -2016. ISBN: 978 0 7347 5906 1

Date post:	09-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series ... · page 3 Feral Goat Management to...

Documents