Commonwealth of Australia
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Section 279
Variation of Threat Abatement Plan
I, PETER ROBERT GARRETT, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, under section 279 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, having reviewed the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox (1999), notice of which was published in the Government Gazette No. GN27 dated 7 July 1999, have decided to vary that threat abatement plan by replacing it with a revised threat abatement plan for the listed key threatening process as specified below:
Listed Key Threatening Process
Revised Threat Abatement Plan
Predation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox – 2008. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; Commonwealth of Australia.
The Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox (2008) will come into force on the date of signing of this instrument.
Dated this 1st day of October 2008.
PETER ROBERT GARRETT
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
Threat abatement plan
for predation by the European red fox
2008
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts
ISBN 978-0-642-55394-2
© Commonwealth of Australia 2008
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to:
Assistant Secretary
Biodiversity Conservation Branch
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
This publication and its background document are available on the internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/tap-approved.html
They are also available by emailing the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Community Information Unit, at ciu@environment.gov.au
or freecall 1800 803 772.
This plan should be cited as: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox, DEWHA, Canberra.
Front cover photo: Graeme Purdy
Technical editing and production management: Biotext Pty Ltd
Design and artwork: Design Direction
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Threat abatement plans 1
1.2 Threat abatement plan for the European red fox 2
1.2.1 The threat 2
1.2.2 The impacts 2
1.2.3 Managing the threat 2
1.2.4 The review of the 1999 TAP 3
1.2.5 Involvement of stakeholders 3
2 Objectives and actions 4
Objective 1 5
Objective 2 6
Objective 3 7
Objective 4 8
Objective 5 9
3 Duration, cost, implementation and evaluation of the plan 10
3.1 Duration and cost of the plan 10
3.2 Implementing the plan 10
3.3 Evaluating implementation of the plan 10
Appendix A: Species affected by the European red fox 11
Glossary 17
Acronyms and abbreviations 18
References 19
1 Introduction
This threat abatement plan (TAP) establishes a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s response to the impacts of European red foxes on biodiversity. It identifies the research, management and other actions needed to ensure the long-term survival of native species and ecological communities affected by predation by European red foxes. It replaces the TAP for predation by European red foxes published in 1999 (EA 1999a).
This plan should be read in conjunction with the publication Background document for the threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox (DEWHA 2008). The background document provides information on fox characteristics, biology and distribution; impacts on environmental, economic, social and cultural values; and current management practices and measures.
1.1 Threat abatement plans
Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Australian Government develops TAPs and facilitates their implementation. To progress the main strategic development actions, the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) assesses the potential for partnerships and co-investment with other government agencies, industry and other stakeholders. An important part of implementation of the TAP is ensuring that knowledge of improved abatement methods is disseminated to potential users.
Mitigating the threat of invasive species is not simply a matter of providing better technical solutions, such as improved baits for pest animal control. It also involves understanding and addressing social and economic factors; for example, through supporting the efforts of private landholders and leaseholders to manage invasive species on their lands for biodiversity conservation and primary production. In addition, research and development programs for controlling vertebrate pest species need to integrate the interests of both primary production and environmental conservation.
Regional natural resource management plans and site-based plans provide the best scale and context for developing operational plans for controlling invasive species. They allow primary production and environmental considerations to be jointly addressed, and control to be integrated across the local priority vertebrate pests within the scope of other natural resource management priorities.
The national coordination of pest animal control activities occurs under the Australian Pest Animal Strategy, released in 2007 by the Natural Resource Management and Primary Industries Ministerial councils. The Vertebrate Pests Committee, comprising representatives from all Australian, state and territory governments, has responsibility for implementation of the strategy. This TAP provides guidance for management of foxes within that broader context.
1.2 Threat abatement plan for the European red fox
1.2.1 The threat
The European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was first brought to Australia by English settlers in the 19th century (Rolls 1984), and by the 1870s fox populations had become established in the wild. Today, foxes are widely distributed across the Australian mainland and are confirmed to be present in Tasmania (Saunders et al. 2006). However, the fox has not yet colonised the tropical far north and is not established on Kangaroo Island or on many other offshore islands. Factors driving abundance and distribution of foxes are not clear; for example, it is not known whether they have reached their northern limit (Saunders et al. 1995).
The fox is a serious vertebrate pest and is in the World Conservation Union’s list of the 100 worst invasive species (Lowe et al. 2000). Predation by the European red fox is listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act. Foxes are a confirmed or perceived threat to a large number of threatened species (see Appendix A), although impacts from fox predation are not restricted to these species.
This TAP has been put into place as a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the threat of predation by foxes.
1.2.2 The impacts
Foxes have a wide dietary range, and are threatened by few natural enemies or few serious diseases in Australia. They also have high reproductive rates and high rates of cub survival, which allows them to rapidly colonise areas although they only breed once a year over a short period. These attributes are important in making the fox a significant threat to biodiversity.
Foxes have direct impacts on a range of native animal species. They prey particularly on small to medium-sized, ground-dwelling and semi-arboreal mammals, ground-nesting birds and chelid tortoises.
1.2.3 Managing the threat
As foxes are so widely established in Australia, the focus of management is on abating impacts by established populations, except for offshore islands that are currently fox free and Tasmania where eradication is being attempted. Control of foxes is difficult; control methods include baiting, shooting, trapping, den fumigation or destruction, and exclusion fencing. However, apart from broadscale baiting, the methods are expensive, labour intensive, long term and of limited effectiveness (Saunders and McLeod 2007).
Interactions between pest species mean that control of other pest animals can have effects on foxes. For example, a study in inland Australia found that fox numbers fell after a major reduction in rabbit numbers through rabbit haemorrhagic disease (Bowen and Read 1998). An understanding of these interactions is important when designing and recommending pest animal control programs. In many situations, concurrent multi-species programs will be required. Integrating control techniques will maximise the success of control programs.
Continental eradication may be the ideal goal of a fox TAP, but is not feasible with current resources and techniques. Fox populations must therefore be suppressed and managed to mitigate impacts on affected native species. Progress in control programs must be monitored to ensure that objectives are met and to allow management options to be adapted to changing circumstances. Individual identification of foxes by scat genotyping has potential for monitoring abundance before and after control programs (Piggott and Taylor 2003). In addition, population genetic analysis may offer insights into invasion routes and population dynamics. The necessary background genetic database enabling data interpretation is being developed by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
1.2.4 The review of the 1999 TAP
In accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act, the original TAP for foxes (EA 1999a) was reviewed in 2004–05 by the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) (Hart 2005) as part of a broader review encompassing the original TAPs for cats (EA 1999b), goats (EA 1999c) and rabbits (EA 1999d). Anecdotal, circumstantial and experimental evidence shows that fox predation continues to be a major threat to the survival of native Australian fauna. The review identified a number of the actions that have been implemented by state agencies; for example, New South Wales with its own TAP has undertaken local regional fox control to benefit threatened species.
The BRS review found that it was difficult to accurately determine the extent to which the TAP had reduced the impacts of foxes on biodiversity. This reflects the current paucity of nationally consistent data on the ranges and densities of foxes and their impacts, and the difficulties of linking outcomes in population changes to the outputs of the fox TAP. The invasive species indicator data to be produced under the National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (NRMMC 2003) should improve the availability of continental overview data over the next year or so.
The BRS surveyed a broad range of stakeholders and assessed a range of projects commissioned by the Department of Environment and Heritage (now the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) that were developed under the auspices of the existing TAPs. This has helped to identify actions that will need to be initiated or continued into the future. The review concluded, however, that the fox-related projects that were assessed had positively contributed to reducing the impacts of foxes. Furthermore, projects have addressed specific pest control needs in high-priority locations, toxin development and biocontrol agents, and have provided considerable support for developing control techniques. Of the 27 actions in the 1999 TAP for foxes, many were targeted by at least one project, and almost a third of the fox actions had been fully completed.
The BRS review proposed a number of changes to the actions found in the original TAP, but recommended that the objectives remain substantially unchanged. The review suggested that the implementation of the revised fox TAP should give priority to improved national engagement, integrated pest animal control, flexibility in implementation, setting priorities for research, follow-through with research and development, and establishment of a new advisory panel for vertebrate TAPs. The review also recommended that the revised plan include measures to enhance existing processes through, for example, regional processes, control and monitoring techniques that support on-ground management, and monitoring of key projects according to national protocols.
This document replaces the 1999 TAP. It incorporates the knowledge gained in the intervening years and has been modified in line with recommendations from the review. The TAP aims to guide the responsible use of public resources and the best outcome for native species and ecological communities threatened by predation by foxes. The plan seeks to achieve these outcomes by recognising the opportunities and limitations that exist, and ensuring that field experience and research are used to further improve management of foxes. The activities and priorities under the TAP will need to adapt to changes as they occur.
1.2.5 Involvement of stakeholders
The successful implementation of this TAP will depend on a high level of cooperation between landholders, community groups, local government, state and territory conservation and pest management agencies, and the Australian Government and its agencies. Success will depend on all participants allocating adequate resources to achieve effective on-ground control of foxes at critical sites, improve the effectiveness of control programs, and measure and assess outcomes. Various programs in natural resource management, at national, state and regional levels, can make significant contributions to implementing the plan.
2 Objectives and actions
The goal of this TAP is to minimise the impact of foxes on biodiversity in Australia and its territories by:
• protecting affected native species and ecological communities, and
• preventing further species and ecological communities from becoming threatened.
To achieve this goal, the plan has five main objectives, developed through the review of the previous TAP (Hart 2005) and consultation with experts. These objectives are to:
1. prevent foxes occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate foxes from high-conservation-value ‘islands’
2. promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological communities that are affected by fox predation
3. improve knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and interactions with other species and other ecological processes
4. improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness of control options for foxes, and
5. increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of the TAP, and of the need to control and manage foxes.
Each objective is accompanied by a set of actions, which, when implemented, will help to achieve the goal of the plan. Performance indicators have been established for each objective. Progress will be assessed by determining the extent to which the performance indicators have been met.
The sections below provide background on each objective, followed by a table listing the actions required to meet the objective. Twenty actions have been developed to meet the five objectives.
Priorities for each action are given in the tables below, categorised as ‘very high’, ‘high’ or ‘medium’. Each action has also been assigned a timeframe within which the outcome could be achieved once the action has commenced. Timeframes are categorised as short term (i.e. within three years), medium term (i.e. within three to five years) or long term (i.e. five years or beyond).
Objective 1
Prevent foxes occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate foxes from high-conservation-value ‘islands’
Key actions for Objective 1 include identifying ‘islands’ of high conservation value, ranking the risk to such areas posed by foxes, and developing and implementing management plans to protect such areas from foxes. The actions are designed to prevent foxes from occupying new areas in Australia where they are likely to impact significantly on biodiversity, and to remove them from high-conservation-value ‘islands’ where this is feasible. Fox-free ‘islands’ can be isolated by means of fencing, geographical features or intensive management to protect and restore habitats and ecological processes. The fox is absent from large parts of Australia (e.g. northern Australia), and an important activity is to monitor their distribution at the edge of their extent. The actions are of high to very high priority and could be achieved within three to five years. DEWHA is establishing a national database of introduced animals across Australian offshore islands that will complement this work.
Action 1.1 focuses on collating data on conservation values of island areas, the likelihood of significant biodiversity impacts from foxes, and the risk that predation by foxes will become a threat in these areas.
Action 1.2 develops contingency plans for preventing, monitoring and, if an incursion occurs, containing and eradicating foxes in areas with high conservation values. Assessment of invasion risk by foxes should use population genetic approaches for identifying past invasion routes. Action 1.3 implements these plans. Action 1.4 involves eradicating established populations of foxes from those ‘islands’ considered of high conservation value, depending on feasibility and cost-effectiveness. These actions follow on from implementation of Action 3.1. All planning and implementation work needs to recognise that foxes are only one possible pest, and therefore should be undertaken within the context of integrated management activities.
Performance indicators
• No further establishments of foxes on offshore islands or in other fox-free areas.
• Successful eradication of isolated populations of foxes where this is attempted.
• Increased populations of affected native species in areas from which foxes, and other invasive species, have been eradicated, subject to interrelated issues.
Action
Priority and timeframe
1.1 Collate data on offshore islands and isolated mainland ‘islands’, assess their conservation value, the likelihood of significant biodiversity impacts from foxes and, if there are no foxes present, rank the level of risk of foxes being introduced and establishing populations.
High priority, short term
1.2 Develop management plans to prevent, monitor and, if incursions occur, contain and eradicate any fox incursion, for ‘islands’ with high conservation values.
High priority, medium term
1.3 Implement management plans for high-conservation-value ‘islands’, including prevention and monitoring actions, and containment or eradication actions if incursions occur.
Very high priority, medium term
1.4 Eradicate established populations of foxes from ‘islands’ with high conservation values (including Tasmania) where this is cost-effective, feasible and a conservation priority.
Very high priority, medium to long term
Objective 2
Promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological communities that are affected by fox predation
Key actions for Objective 2 include identifying priority areas for investment in fox control, implementing and supporting regional control programs, and applying incentives for promoting and maintaining control programs adjacent to the priority areas. Actions 2.1–2.3 focus programs in fox control on the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological communities affected by fox predation. Actions 2.1 and 2.2 are of high priority.
Fox populations need to be reduced over large areas because rapid population recovery, particularly by reinvasion, is a major problem. However, broadscale control of foxes throughout Australia is not feasible using the methods currently available. Therefore, it is necessary to identify priority areas for control based on scientific evidence of the significance of the population of native species or the ecological community affected and the degree of impact posed by foxes, relative to other impacts. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of a control program must be considered. These activities are covered by Action 2.1. Identification of priority areas could involve mapping the distribution of susceptible species, high-risk habitats and foxes, to produce a national overview of priority regions (e.g. using the approach outlined in Dickman [1996] and NSW NPWS [2001]).
Once priority areas have been identified, the next step is to implement regional control programs, as described in Action 2.2. Organisations implementing control programs will be encouraged to focus on areas where fox control will have the greatest outcome in reducing the threats to local populations of significant native species. The success of control programs should be monitored, applying national protocols (see Action 3.1) as soon as they are available.
It is important to control foxes in priority areas and in adjacent areas, to prevent immediate reinvasion. Action 2.3 focuses on developing incentives for such actions on private and leasehold lands.
Performance indicators
• Priority areas, where fox control is required to protect important affected fauna, have been identified and are a focus for fox control programs.
• Fox control work involves pre and post-control monitoring of fox populations and key native species targeted for protection, according to national protocols, to measure the outcomes of control operations.
• Reliable native species population indicators are used to measure the outcome of reduced pest populations.
Action
Priority and timeframe
2.1 Identify priority areas for fox control based on:
• the significance of the population of the affected native species or of the ecological community
• the degree of threat posed by foxes to species and ecological communities relative to other threats
• the cost-effectiveness of maintaining fox populations below an identified ‘damage threshold’ in the region, and
• the feasibility of effective remedial action.
High priority, medium term
2.2 Conduct and monitor regional fox control, through new or existing programs, in priority areas identified in Action 2.1.
High priority, long term
2.3 Apply incentives (other than bounties), partnerships and negotiated agreements to promote and maintain on-ground fox control on private or leasehold lands within or adjacent to priority sites identified in Action 2.1.
Medium priority, medium term
Objective 3
Improve knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and interactions with other species and other ecological processes
Key actions for Objective 3 include developing simple, cost-effective methods for monitoring impacts; improving knowledge of interactions between foxes and native carnivores, and between foxes, cats and wild dogs; and identifying the unintended effects of fox control in isolation from other activities. Actions 3.1–3.4 focus on ensuring that fox control does not lead to unintended effects, through better understanding of the impact of foxes, non-target impacts of control measures and fox interactions with other species. These actions are mostly of medium priority and most will require a long-term commitment. A range of available genetic marker analyses may be useful in improving our knowledge of fox ecology and how best to manage them. Genetic markers can, for example, help improve understanding of invasion routes and population dynamics.
To determine the effectiveness of fox control programs, Action 3.1 is to develop simple, cost-effective methods for monitoring the impact of this invasive species on affected species and ecological processes relative to other sources of impact. Areas for investigation include the feasibility and practicality of individual identification of foxes by genotyping scats or hairs, to help estimate abundance, particularly at low densities.
Interactions between foxes and other species need to be considered when undertaking control programs. Action 3.2 is to investigate interactions between foxes and native carnivores to improve understanding of the impact of foxes on these species in terms of competition and predation. Similarly, Action 3.3 is to investigate interactions between foxes, feral cats, wild dogs and rabbits (competition and/or predation) so that control activities for these four species can be more effectively integrated. For example, certain fences used to exclude foxes can also exclude cats and wild dogs.
Action 3.4 aims to identify any unintended effects (e.g. ‘mesopredator release’) that fox control may have if it is not integrated with other management activities. This action depends on the results of Actions 3.2–3.3.
Performance indicators
• Reliable fox monitoring techniques have been developed.
• Integration of control methods for pest species.
• The unintended effects of fox control are minimised.
Action
Priority and timeframe
3.1 Develop simple and cost-effective methods for monitoring populations of foxes and the impacts of foxes, including reliable methods for monitoring foxes and key native species at different densities, including very low densities.
Medium priority, short term
3.2 Investigate interactions between foxes and native carnivores to identify the significance of competition and predation by foxes to these native species.
Medium priority, long term
3.3 Determine the nature of interactions between foxes, feral cats, wild dogs and rabbits to effectively integrate fox control activities for all four species.
Medium priority, long term
3.4 Identify any unintended effects that fox control may have if conducted in isolation from other management activities.
Medium priority, long term
3.5 Develop means for estimating the environmental and other associated costs of impacts arising from foxes.
Medium priority, short term
Objective 4
Improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness of control options for foxes
Key actions for Objective 4 include improving control methods, training land managers to make the best use of control methods, and increasing the adoption of standard control methods. Actions 4.1–4.5 focus on improving control of foxes through better use of existing techniques and development of new techniques, including those for monitoring success of control in the field. Many of these actions are a high priority and will require a long-term commitment.
Deficiencies in currently available baits and baiting systems create an obstacle to fox control. In response to this situation, Actions 4.1 and 4.2 are to conduct research and extension to improve existing baiting methods and to develop and promote new control techniques. Areas for investigation should include the deployment of baits, canid-specific toxins (which may allow greater surface baiting), 1080/analgesic combination, M44 ejectors, self-loading bait delivery stations, hormone-based fertility control and bait station lures. Such an increased range of control techniques will reduce reliance on 1080 baiting and may facilitate high fox kill rates through integrated control.
The cost-effectiveness of exclusion fences and control methods such as shooting is covered by Action 4.3. The potential for use of control techniques that target foxes but not dingoes is covered by Action 4.4.
To improve the effectiveness of local and regional control programs, Action 4.5 is to develop training programs to help land managers identify control methods appropriate for local conditions and determine in what circumstances and times they should be used.
Fox control programs need to consider habitat rehabilitation and other activities that may be required to promote the recovery of native species and ecological communities; this is covered by Action 4.6.
Finally, to ensure that fox management follows best practice, Action 4.7 is to continue to promote the adoption and adaptation of the relevant model codes of practice and standard operating procedures for the humane management of foxes, including their recognition under the National Competency Standards for Vertebrate Pest Management (NTIS 2007).
Performance indicators
• Increased range of registered control techniques available for fox control.
• Widespread use of the most appropriate, cost-effective control methods, according to local conditions.
• Increased adoption and adaptation of the model codes of practice and standard operating procedures for the humane management of foxes, including their recognition as a reference under the National Competency Standards for Vertebrate Pest Management.
Action
Priority and timeframe
4.1 Conduct research and extension to improve the effectiveness, target specificity and humaneness of existing toxin–bait media and baiting methods.
High priority, long term
4.2 Conduct further work on the development of new, or improvements to existing, control techniques.
High priority, long term
4.3 Test and disseminate information on exclusion fence designs and other control methods regarding their cost-effectiveness for particular habitats or topography.
Low priority, medium term
4.4 Investigate the feasibility of control techniques to target foxes, but not dingoes, in some areas.
Low priority, long term
4.5 Develop training programs to help land managers identify locally appropriate control method(s) and when (i.e. circumstances and times) to apply them in controlling foxes.
High priority, short term
4.6 Ensure that habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey, competitors and predators of foxes are considered in fox control programs.
Medium priority, long term
4.7 Continue to promote the adoption and adaptation of the model codes of practice and standard operating procedures for humane management of foxes.
High priority, long term
Objective 5
Increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of the TAP, and of the need to control and manage foxes
Action 5.1 focuses on ensuring that the TAP actions are better communicated to interested parties by preparing and distributing extension materials. Extension materials will help to promote knowledge and understanding of the 19 actions listed in Objectives 1–4, the techniques used in fox control, and why fox predation is listed as a key threatening process. This action is of high priority and will require a long-term commitment.
It has been difficult to achieve and maintain effective regional fox control programs in many areas, despite the availability of suitable control techniques (see, for example, Riethmuller et al. 2005).
Performance indicators
• Increased proportion of fox control programs that use current best-practice techniques in fox control.
• Increased awareness of the threat posed by foxes.
• Increased awareness of the TAP actions and objectives.
Action
Priority and timeframe
5.1 Promote:
• broad understanding of the threat to biodiversity posed by foxes and support for their control
• support for the actions to be undertaken under this plan
• the use of humane and cost-effective fox control methods
• best-practice effective fox control in all tenures, and
• understanding of predation by foxes as a key threatening process.
High priority, long term
3 Duration, cost, implementation and evaluation of the plan
3.1 Duration and cost of the plan
The plan reflects the fact that the threat abatement process is likely to be ongoing, as there is no likelihood of nationally eradicating foxes in the foreseeable future.
Investment in many of the TAP actions will be determined by the level of resources that stakeholders commit to management of the problem. The total cost of implementation cannot be quantified at the time of writing. The ongoing costs of fox control will generally be high. For instance, to aerially bait approximately 35 000 square kilometres/year would cost approximately $1.3 million (Saunders and McLeod 2007). Exclusion fencing is also expensive, in some cases up to $10 000/km.
This TAP provides a framework for undertaking targeted priority actions. Budgetary and other constraints may affect the achievement of the objectives of this plan, and as knowledge changes, proposed actions may be modified over the life of the plan. Australian Government funds may be available to implement key national environmental priorities, such as relevant actions listed in this plan and actions identified in regional natural resource management plans.
3.2 Implementing the plan
DEWHA will work with other Australian Government agencies, state and territory governments and national and regional industry and community groups, to facilitate the implementation of the plan. There are many different stakeholder interests and perspectives to take into account in managing foxes. For example, Indigenous communities’ views need to be fully considered. It will be important to consult and involve the range of stakeholders in implementing the actions in this plan.
The Australian Government will implement the plan as it applies to Commonwealth land.
DEWHA will support a TAP implementation team to assist and advise on the implementation of the plan. The team will draw on expertise in vertebrate pest management from state and territory agencies, and non-government organisations.
This TAP will operate under the overarching framework of the Australian Biosecurity System for Primary Production and the Environment (AusBIOSEC) and in the context of the Australian Pest Animal Strategy, both of which aim to reduce the impacts of invasive species on native species and ecosystems.
3.3 Evaluating implementation
of the plan
It will be difficult to assess directly the effectiveness of the plan in abating the impacts of foxes on Australia’s biodiversity. However, the Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (NRMMC 2003) established a program to provide national information about resource condition on a range of biophysical matters, including threats from vertebrate species such as foxes. As part of this work, a range of indicators will provide information on the extent of the impact of priority vertebrate species on biodiversity, as well as national trends on their distribution and abundance.
The species in the table below may be adversely affected by predation by foxes (that is, there is scientific proof, anecdotal evidence or the potential for impact). The threatened species included are listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The list is indicative and not comprehensive.
Information for species listed under the EPBC Act is available from the Species Profile and Threats Database: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.
Appendix A: Species affected by the European red fox
Type/category
Scientific name
Common name
Current status
Listed threatened species that may be adversely affected by the European red fox
Birds
Amytornis barbatus barbatus
Grey grasswren (bulloo)
Vulnerable
Cinclosoma punctatum anachoreta
Spotted quail-thrush (Mt Lofty Ranges)
Critically endangered
Dasyornis brachypterus
Eastern bristlebird
Endangered
Geophaps scripta scripta
Squatter pigeon (southern)
Vulnerable
Leipoa ocellata
Malleefowl
Vulnerable
Neophema chrysogaster
Orange-bellied parrot
Critically endangered
Pedionomus torquatus
Plains-wanderer
Vulnerable
Pezoporus occidentalis
Night parrot
Endangered
Pezoporus wallicus flaviventris
Western ground parrot
Endangered
Pterodroma heraldica
Herald petrel
Critically endangered
Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera
Gould’s petrel
Endangered
Stipiturus malachurus intermedius
Southern emu-wren (Fleurieu Peninsula), Mount Lofty southern emu-wren
Endangered
Birds (continued)
Stipiturus malachurus parimeda
Southern emu-wren (Eyre Peninsula)
Vulnerable
Turnix melanogaster
Black-breasted button-quail
Vulnerable
Mammals
Bettongia lesueur lesueur
Boodie, burrowing bettong (Shark Bay)
Vulnerable
Bettongia lesueur unnamed subsp.
Boodie, burrowing bettong (Barrow and Boodie Islands)
Vulnerable
Bettongia tropica
Northern bettong
Endangered
Burramys parvus
Mountain pygmy-possum
Endangered
Dasycercus byrnei
Kowari
Vulnerable
Dasycercus cristicauda
Mulgara
Vulnerable
Dasycercus hillieri
Ampurta
Endangered
Dasyurus geoffroii
Chuditch, western quoll
Vulnerable
Dasyurus maculatus gracilis
Spotted-tailed quoll, or yarri (north Queensland subspecies)
Endangered
Dasyurus maculatus maculatus
Spot-tailed quoll, spotted-tail quoll, tiger quoll (southeastern mainland population)
Endangered
Isoodon obesulus obesulus
Southern brown bandicoot
Endangered
Lagorchestes hirsutus bernieri
Rufous hare-wallaby (Bernier Island)
Vulnerable
Lagorchestes hirsutus dorreae
Rufous hare-wallaby (Dorre Island)
Vulnerable
Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp.
Mala, rufous hare-wallaby (central mainland form)
Endangered
Lagostrophus fasciatus fasciatus
Banded hare-wallaby, marnine, munning
Vulnerable
Leporillus conditor
Wopilkara, greater stick-nest rat
Vulnerable
Macrotis lagotis
Greater bilby
Vulnerable
Myrmecobius fasciatus
Numbat
Vulnerable
Notomys fuscus
Dusky hopping-mouse, wilkiniti
Vulnerable
Notoryctes caurinus
Karkarratul, northern marsupial mole
Endangered
Notoryctes typhlops
Yitjarritjarri, southern marsupial mole
Endangered
Mammals (continued)
Onychogalea fraenata
Bridled nail-tail wallaby
Endangered
Parantechinus apicalis
Dibbler
Endangered
Perameles bougainville bougainville
Western barred bandicoot (Shark Bay)
Endangered
Perameles gunnii gunnii
Eastern barred bandicoot (Tasmania)
Vulnerable
Perameles gunnii unnamed subsp.
Eastern barred bandicoot (mainland)
Endangered
Petrogale lateralis lateralis
Black-flanked rock-wallaby
Vulnerable
Petrogale lateralis pearsoni
Pearson Island rock-wallaby
Vulnerable
Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges race
Warru, black-footed rock-wallaby
Vulnerable
Petrogale lateralis West Kimberley race
Black-footed rock-wallaby
Vulnerable
Petrogale penicillata
Brush-tailed rock-wallaby
Vulnerable
Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus
Yellow-footed rock-wallaby (SA and NSW)
Vulnerable
Phascogale calura
Red-tailed phascogale
Endangered
Potorous gilbertii
Gilbert’s potoroo
Critically endangered
Potorous longipes
Long-footed potoroo
Endangered
Potorous tridactylus tridactylus
Long-nosed potoroo (southeast mainland)
Vulnerable
Pseudocheirus occidentalis
Western ringtail possum
Vulnerable
Pseudomys australis
Plains rat
Vulnerable
Pseudomys fieldi
Djoongari, Alice Springs mouse, Shark Bay mouse
Vulnerable
Pseudomys fumeus
Konoom, smoky mouse
Endangered
Pseudomys oralis
Hastings river mouse
Endangered
Pseudomys pilligaensis
Pilliga mouse
Vulnerable
Pseudomys shortridgei
Dayang, heath rat
Vulnerable
Setonix brachyurus
Quokka
Vulnerable
Mammals (continued)
Sminthopsis douglasi
Julia Creek dunnart
Endangered
Sminthopsis psammophila
Sandhill dunnart
Endangered
Xeromys myoides
Water mouse, false water rat
Vulnerable
Zyzomys pedunculatus
Central rock-rat
Endangered
Reptiles
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead turtle
Endangered
Chelonia mydas
Green turtle
Vulnerable
Delma impar
Striped legless lizard
Vulnerable
Dermochelys coriacea
Leathery turtle, leatherback turtle, luth
Vulnerable
Egernia kintorei
Great desert skink, tjakura, warrarna, mulyamiji
Vulnerable
Elusor macrurus
Mary River tortoise
Endangered
Emydura signata
Bellinger River emydura (Bellinger River, NSW)
Vulnerable
Eulamprus tympanum marnieae
Corangamite water skink
Endangered
Hoplocephalus bungaroides
Broad-headed snake
Vulnerable
Natator depressus
Flatback turtle
Vulnerable
Pseudemydura umbrina
Western swamp tortoise
Critically endangered
Rheodytes leukops
Fitzroy tortoise
Vulnerable
Amphibians
Heleioporus australiacus
Giant burrowing frog
Vulnerable
Litoria aurea
Green and golden bell frog
Vulnerable
Unlisted species or taxa that could be adversely affected
Birds
Amaurornis olivaceus
Bush-hen
Anas castanea
Chestnut teal
Anas gracilis
Grey teal
Anas superciliosa
Pacific black duck
Anthus novaeseelandiae
Richard’s pipit
Aythya australis
Hardhead
Type/category
Scientific name
Common name
Current status
Unlisted species or taxa that could be adversely affected
Birds (continued)
Botaurus poiciloptilus
Australasian bittern
Charadrius mongolus
Lesser sand plover, Mongolian plover
Charadrius ruficapillus
Red-capped plover
Coturnix pectoralis
Stubble quail
Eudyptes pachyrhynchus
Fiordland penguin
Eurostopodus argus
Spotted nightjar
Eurostopodus mystacalis
White-throated nightjar
Gallinago hardwickii
Latham’s snipe, Japanese snipe
Haliaeetus leucogaster
White-bellied sea-eagle
Himantopus himantopus
Black-winged stilt
Menura alberti
Albert’s lyrebird
Merops ornatus
Rainbow bee-eater
Morus serrator
Australasian gannet
Neophema petrophila
Rock parrot
Numenius minutus
Little curlew, little whimbrel
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Leach’s storm-petrel
Pezoporus wallicus wallicus
Ground parrot (eastern)
Phalacrocorax fuscescens
Black-faced cormorant
Puffinus carneipes
Flesh-footed shearwater, fleshy-footed shearwater
Puffinus pacificus
Wedge-tailed shearwater
Puffinus tenuirostris
Short-tailed shearwater
Recurvirostra novaehollandiae
Red-necked avocet
Spheniscus magellanicus
Magellanic penguin
Sterna albifrons
Little tern
Sterna anaethetus
Bridled tern
Sterna nereis
Fairy tern
Type/category
Scientific name
Common name
Current status
Unlisted species or taxa that could be adversely affected
Birds (continued)
Sterna nilotica
Gull-billed tern
Thinornis rubricollis
Hooded plover
Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis
Hooded plover (eastern)
Mammals
Dasyurus maculatus maculatus
Spot-tailed quoll, spotted-tail quoll, tiger quoll (Tasmanian subspecies)
Macroderma gigas
Ghost bat
Macropus parma
Parma wallaby
Glossary
Biocontrol Control of pests by disrupting their ecological status through the use of organisms that are natural predators, parasites or pathogens.
Canid A member of the Canidae family, which includes dogs, foxes and wolves.
Critically endangered Under the EPBC Act, a native species is eligible to be included in the critically endangered category at a particular time if, at that time, it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
Endangered Under the EPBC Act, a native species is eligible to be included in the endangered category at a particular time if, at that time, (a) it is not critically endangered; and (b) it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
Feral An introduced animal, formerly in domestication, with an established, self-supporting population in the wild.
Genotyping The process of determining the genotype (i.e. the genetic makeup) of an individual with a biological assay.
Invasive species A species occurring as a result of human activities beyond its accepted normal distribution and which threatens valued environmental, agricultural or personal resources by the damage it causes (Beeton et al. 2006).
Key threatening process Under the EPBC Act, a process that threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community.
Mesopredator A middle-rank predator in a food web (Saunders and McLeod 2007).
Performance indicator A criterion or measure that provides information on the extent to which a policy, program or initiative is achieving its outcomes.
Pest animal or species Any non-human species of animal that causes trouble locally or over a wide area, to one or more persons, either by being a health hazard or a general nuisance, or by causing damage to agriculture, wild ecosystems or natural resources.
Threat abatement plan Under the EPBC Act, a plan providing for the research, management, and any other actions necessary to reduce the impact of a listed key threatening process on affected species and ecological communities.
Threatened species A species under the EPBC Act listed as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or conservation dependent.
Vulnerable Under the EPBC Act, a native species is eligible to be included in the vulnerable category at a particular time if, at that time, (a) it is not critically endangered or endangered; and (b) it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
Acronyms and abbreviations
BRS Bureau of Rural Sciences
DEWHA Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
EPBC Act the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
TAP threat abatement plan
1080 sodium fluoroacetate
References
Beeton RJS, Buckley K, Jones G, Morgan D, Reichelt R and Trewin D (2006). Australia state of the environment 2006, independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Bowen ZE and Read JL (1998). Factors influencing breeding and survivorship of rabbits in the Roxby Downs region. Wildlife Research 25:655–662.
DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2008). Background document for the threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox, DEWHA, Canberra.
Dickman CR (1996). Overview of the impact of feral cats on Australian native fauna, report to the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/cat-impacts/index.html (Accessed December 2006)
EA (Environment Australia) (1999a). Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox, EA, Canberra.
EA (Environment Australia) (1999b). Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, EA, Canberra.
EA (Environment Australia) (1999c). Threat abatement plan for predation by feral goats, EA, Canberra.
EA (Environment Australia) (1999d). Threat abatement plan for predation by feral rabbits, EA, Canberra.
Hart Q (2005). A review of the Commonwealth Government’s threat abatement plans for feral goats, feral rabbits, feral cats and the European red fox, final report for the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Lowe S, Browne M and Boudjelas S (2000).
100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the Global Invasive Species Database, Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland.
NRMMC (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council) (2003). National natural resource management monitoring and evaluation framework.
http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/frameworks/me-framework.html (Accessed August 2007)
NSW NPWS (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2001). Threat abatement plan for predation by the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), NSW NPWS, Hurstville.http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Predation+by+the+red+fox+-+final+threat+abatement+plan (Accessed December 2006)
NTIS (National Training Information Service) (2007). National competency standards for vertebrate pest management (RTD1501A, RTD4406A, RTD5402A).
http://www.ntis.gov.au/Default.aspx?/TrainingPackage/RTE03/volume/RTE03_4/importedunit (Accessed November 2007)
Piggott MP and Taylor AC (2003). Extensive evaluation of faecal preservation and DNA extraction methods in Australian native and introduced species. Australian Journal of Zoology 51:341–355.
Riethmuller J, McPhee S, McLean S, Ritchie D, Matthews J, Blackie D, Brown I and Box G (2005). Facilitating the management of foxes on private land: are landholders interested?
In: Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Vertebrate Pest Conference, Wellington.
Rolls EC (1984). They all ran wild: the animals and plants that plague Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Saunders G and McLeod L (2007). Improving fox management strategies in Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Saunders G, Coman B, Kinnear J and Braysher M (1995). Managing vertebrate pests: foxes, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Saunders G, Lane C, Harris S and Dickman C (2006). Foxes in Tasmania: a report on an incursion of an invasive species, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
http://www.invasiveanimals.com/images/pdfs/FoxReview_Web.pdf (Accessed December 2006)
