❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses feral pig and emu management, the lack of eagle inspections, and the potential for bounty programs. The Minister clarifies landholder responsibility and outlines existing control programs, rejecting bounty schemes.
AnsweredQoN 353Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) With regard to the Agriculture Protection Board’s animal pest management, can the minister please advise the number of inspections recorded for feral pigs and emus in the agricultural region in 2000-01 compared with 2001-02? (2) Have any inspections been recorded for eagles? (3) What program has the APB implemented to reduce the damage to farms and crops caused by feral pigs and emus in the Agricultural Region? (4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(2) Have any inspections been recorded for eagles? (3) What program has the APB implemented to reduce the damage to farms and crops caused by feral pigs and emus in the Agricultural Region? (4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(3) What program has the APB implemented to reduce the damage to farms and crops caused by feral pigs and emus in the Agricultural Region? (4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(2) Have any inspections been recorded for eagles? (3) What program has the APB implemented to reduce the damage to farms and crops caused by feral pigs and emus in the Agricultural Region? (4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(3) What program has the APB implemented to reduce the damage to farms and crops caused by feral pigs and emus in the Agricultural Region? (4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(4) As complaints arise over the ineffectiveness of the APB to control vermin numbers, will the Government introduce a bounty as a form of pest management in agricultural areas? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(1) A total of 133 inspections for feral pigs were recorded in 2000-01 and 355 such inspections in 2001-02. A total of 38 inspections for emus were recorded in 2000-01 and 73 such inspections in 2001-02. These inspections were primarily associated with poisoning programs after damage permits were issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management under the Wildlife Conservation Act. (2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(2) No inspections have been undertaken for eagles as these are native animals and they are managed by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. (3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(3) The landholder is responsible for the control of declared species. The member’s question gives me an opportunity to address this issue because it seems to be somewhat misunderstood. Declared animal species, like declared weeds, are the responsibility of the landholder to control and this has been the case ever since the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act was passed many years ago. The Department of Agriculture encourages community-coordinated control programs and provides a service for the mixing of poisons for both feral pigs and emu control. To facilitate coordinated control, the department has implemented a declared species group initiative during 2002-03. This initiative promotes the formation of community groups to undertake coordinated control programs, with the department supplying funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An article in The West Australian today reports on the engagement of a new dogger under this program. (4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
(4) No. Bounty schemes are sometimes suggested as a means of encouraging the public to control pests. The experience in Western Australia and around the world has been that such schemes are unsuccessful in achieving the goal of reducing pest populations. Past schemes in Western Australia, for example, recorded a sustained yield of scalps over the years, and clearly failed to reduce numbers in the long term. The schemes generally divert resources away from the most effective techniques and strategies for managing the pests. They encourage inappropriate or illegal techniques to acquire carcasses on which to claim payment. Even if a bounty scheme resulted in an increase in the overall numbers of animals killed over time, the capacity of these pests to reinvade and quickly repopulate controlled areas means that any harvesting of the most accessible populations would do nothing for sustained long-term population control.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.