Prom hog deer cull puts the cart before the horse

After a ground shooting operation in recent weeks, Parks Victoria has also trialled aerial culling of wild hog deer on Wilson’s Promontory National Park.

The rationale for this control is part of Parks Victoria’s ‘sanctuary’ objective, which includes an ambitious plan to construct a fence on the park's northern boundary.

Both the Australian Deer Association and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic) were invited to be involved in ongoing efforts focusing on eradication and have declined to do so. Both organisations have also consistently asked for transparency about costs and animal welfare outcomes, and information has not been forthcoming.

Key points:

• There is no clear rationale for this culling operation
• There is no clear reporting on the costs and animal welfare outcomes
• Introduced kangaroos are wombats are effectively being protected by Parks Victoria despite negative impacts

It is important to understand the reasons why the ADA is not involved. It has been framed by our detractors as purely ideological, which it is not.

To be clear, we are not opposed to either deer control or exclusion fencing. Our volunteers have worked with Parks Victoria, SSAA and GMA on deer control on Wilson’s Promontory for five years now, and the result is a marked decrease in abundance.

We have also worked with Parks Victoria and other land managers on exclusion fencing to protect high value environmental and agricultural assets.

We are opposed to the protection of environmental and cultural assets taking a back seat to political expediency and timidity.

There is no sense in setting about solving problems if you don’t understand what problem you are trying to solve. When it comes to public resources and public assets, you must know why you are doing something before you start doing it.

The International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control offer good guidance for land managers planning control measures.

The objectives of wildlife control should be specific, measurable, and outcome‐based, where the outcome relates to the desired reduction of harm—such as reducing crop loss, preventing transmission of a vector‐borne disease, or increasing an endangered species population—rather than simply reducing the number of target animals (Clayton & Cowan 2010). An understanding of population size, demography, ecology, behavior, and reproductive capacity, and the effectiveness of the chosen action are required to judge the likelihood of success. Monitoring is critical and often over‐looked (Clayton & Cowan 2010), and wildlife control should be rooted in an adaptive‐management framework (Warburton & Norton 2009).

At the moment, it would seem that Parks Victoria wants to control hog deer because they are not ‘native’ to Wilsons Promontory.

The Eastern Grey Kangaroos and Common Wombats were“introduced” too (about half a century after the deer found their way onto The Prom). The current population of Eastern Grey Kangaroos are descendants of nine animals released in the Park in 1910 and 1912, and the Common Wombats from five animals released in 1910.

In media reports touting the Prom’s new border fence last year, Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said

“Parks Victoria will spend $6 million to erect the state-of-the-art predator exclusion fence spanning more than 10-kilometres from coast to coast with double barriers at shoreline boundaries to keep out foxes, cats, deer and rabbits”

All of the culprits are exotic, so they are easy enough to demonise – but the overabundant Kangaroos are causing significant issues with over-browsing vegetation…why not mention them?

The wombats are likely the key faunal threat to cultural heritage sites such as Aboriginal Coastal Shell Middens…why aren’t they controlled?

The reality is that if you speak about controlling overabundant natives like kangaroos and wombats, you are subjected to sustained attacks from the animal rights lobby.

We have witnessed researchers at conferences being subjected to attacks and heckling because they dared to outline the scientific case for reducing kangaroo numbers. These people bombard politicians offices with hate mail and often resort to threats and personal attacks in the public arena.

Talk about the case for control for feral horses, and the same treatment applies.

So, what we get is a perverse unspoken compromise – government and agencies pretend that certain wildlife species are not an issue to avoid the vitriol. They pretend that you can treat a quarter of a problem, and that will somehow suffice. Good people who know better shut their mouths and play make-believe.

There are two losers in that – the values we need to protect are clear losers, and the credibility of those who would deny what is plain for all to see also suffers.