Hidden Victims: Lack of Welfare Protection of Invasive Animals in Australia

Transcription

1 Hidden Victims: Lack of Welfare Protection of Invasive Animals in Australia Most invasive vertebrate animals in Australia are directly 1 or indirectly 2 exempted from protection under animal welfare legislation. As was recently stated by the president of the Australian Law Reform Commission, a major loophole in animal welfare legislation seemingly fails to protect many animals, including pest animals. 3 In addition, specific legislation dealing with management and eradication of invasive animals also fails to regard the welfare of these animals. Invasive animals are animals that have spread beyond their normal range and cause adverse impacts on social, environmental or economic assets and values. 4 While invasive animals are frequently referred to as pests in legislation and government documents, 5 this essay uses the term invasive animals to refer to feral, introduced and native vertebrate animals who, through their effect on the human and natural environment, have become the subject of control and eradication measures. Many of today s invasive vertebrate animals were introduced to Australia for farming and domestic purposes, social acclimatisation and hunting. Others have escaped captivity. 6 Debate exists whether some species are native or introduced, 7 and in some circumstances native animals are treated as invasive. 8 Currently 56 vertebrate species in Australia are listed as invasive. 9 No current methods employed in controlling and eradicating invasive animals are entirely successful and many cause stress, trauma and suffering for the animals involved, 1 For example section 24 of the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) creates an express defence against prosecution under the Act when killing pests. Similar exemptions apply in other states. 2 Many States have adopted codes of practice in their animal welfare legislation which, if followed, create a defence against prosecution under the principal Act. Codes are largely unenforceable and not mandatory thus providing limited, if any, protection for animal welfare. See Chapter 3 in M Caulfield, Handbook of Australian Animal Cruelty Law (2008) for a discussion on codes of practice. 3 D Weisbrot, Comment (2008) 91 Reform 2, 3. 4 P West, Assessing Invasive Animals in Australia 2008 (2008) 2. 5 See for example the Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (ACT) and Vertebrate Pests Committee, Parliament of Australia, Australian Pest Animal Strategy: A National Strategy for the Management of Vertebrate Pest Animals in Australia (2007). 6 West, above n 4, 2. 7 For example the Dingo is treated as a protected native animal, the subject of conservation efforts, in some parts of Australia (such as National Parks) yet in other parts it is classified as an invasive animal partly based on arguments that it is an introduced species. 8 Kangaroos are viewed as pests by many farmers while other people view them as icons unique to Australia and deserving of protection. 9 The Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre lists the top nine species as the Fox, Cats, Rabbits, Pigs, Dogs, Mice, Carp, Goats and Cane toads, < at 13 September

2 raising concerns over their humaneness and impacts on animal welfare. There is underlying tension between the necessity to manage invasive animals and the desire to protect the welfare of individual animals. Australia s claim to be a world leader in animal welfare 10 and that [a]ll animals have intrinsic value, 11 contradicts the way millions of invasive animals are treated in Australia. Given invasive animals share the same level of sentience and capacity to suffer as their domestic counterparts it is perplexing that they are afforded minimal protection against suffering under Australia s legislative framework. This essay begins with a brief look at the impacts of invasive animals in Australia followed by a description of commonly employed control methods. Next a series of examples illustrate how animal welfare legislation and invasive animal control legislation fails to protect the welfare of invasive animals. A brief critique is given of new, more humane methods of invasive animal control and it is highlighted that improvements in animal welfare are unlikely under Australia s current legislative and regulatory framework. Impacts of Invasive Animals There is little precise data on the number of invasive animals in Australia 12 and it is difficult to quantify their impacts. Impacts on the environment and agricultural production are the most commonly cited reasons necessitating the control and eradication of invasive animals. A conservative estimate of 720 million dollars per annum was made in a 2004 report looking at the impact of 11 invasive vertebrate species on the Australian economy. 13 Invasive species (including invasive vertebrate animals) are stated to be the greatest cause of global biodiversity decline after land clearing. 14 Discussions surrounding invasive animals focus almost exclusively on their negative impacts. Potential beneficial impacts of invasive animals, if mentioned at all, are quickly discounted in most of the literature. However, some beneficial impacts arguably exist. Rabbits have become an important prey for many raptor species. 15 Some invasive animals 10 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry < at 15 August Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Commonwealth, The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy - Revised Edition (June 2008) For example, estimates of wild pig populations range from 3.5 million to 23.5 million: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Parliament of Australia, Taking Control: A National Approach to Pest Animals (2005) [2.37]. 13 R McLeod, Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control (now Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre), Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia (2004). Over 80 per cent of this figure is attributed to wild pigs, rabbits, foxes and feral cats with half the figure resulting from lost agricultural productivity 14 A J Norris, et al, Costing the impacts of invasive animals (Proceedings of the Invasive Animals CRC workshop on social, economic and environmental impacts of invasive animals, Canberra, November 2005) W Steele and D Baker-Gabb, A national community-based survey of the diurnal birds of prey (BOP Watch) (Paper presented at the Australasian Raptor Association National Conference, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, 30 August 31 August 2008) 2

3 help to suppress other invasive animal species. Foxes can be a significant predator of rabbits, 16 while dingoes prey on wild goats. In fact, feral goat populations persist only in areas where dingoes are absent or are subject to high levels of control 17 and studies have documented that dingoes are positively correlated with the persistence of native species 18 Reports outlining negative impacts of invasive animals concede there is a lack of knowledge on biophysical relationships of invasive animals and detailed information on environmental impacts of many species is still lacking. 19 Similar problems exist for determining agricultural impacts. For example, the economic significance of foxes as predators of livestock has been stated as uncertain and subject to debate. 20 There is little objective information available on the impact of wild pigs. 21 A Victorian farmer giving evidence at a recent Parliamentary Inquiry stated despite more than 730 wild dogs being destroyed between April 2003 and 2004, there was no corresponding decrease in sheep attacks or dog sightings in the area. 22 Feral cats, which are controlled solely to protect conservation values in Australia, 23 have occupied tropical Australia, Tasmania and Kangaroo Island for well over 100 years yet there have been virtually no extinctions of native animals on which feral cats prey in these areas. 24 This shows the mere presence of invasive animals does not necessarily correlate with negative impacts sufficient to justify control ahead of other land management priorities S Adams, Invasive Animal Cooperative Research Centre, Impact of Vertebrate pests on agricultural production and the environment, Fact Sheet (2008) P Fleming, et al, Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs (2001) A Wallach A and C Johnson, Reviving Ecological Functioning with Dingo Restoration (2009), The Hermon Slade Foundation < at 11 September Some researchers even suggest dingoes should be an essential element of biodiversity conservation in Australia: C N Johnson, et al, Rarity of a top predator triggers continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia (2007) 274 (1608) Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 341, Norris, above n 14, Adams, above n 16, K Hart, Legal and Policy Response to the Problem of Pest Animal Impacts on Natural Resources in NSW (2002) 19(5) Environmental and Planning Law Journal 355, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Parliament of Australia, Taking Control: A National Approach to Pest Animals (2005) [2.28]. 23 Hart, above n 21, Adams, above n 16, For example, erosion caused by bushwalkers in Kosciusko National park costs over $7.6 million to repair, and along with bushfire damage, the impact of wild horses in the Park is minuscule by comparison: G Crossley, Horse Culture in Australia and the Management of Wild Horses (Paper presented at the National Feral Horse Management Workshop, Canberra August 2006) 45. 3

4 Quantified impacts must also be placed in perspective. For example the combined net value of agricultural production in was $38.5 billion. 26 Costs to agriculture of invasive vertebrate animals were estimated at $1 billion per year, 27 confirming invasive animals had an impact on agriculture of 2.6 per cent. In the same year the impact and control of weeds cost Australian agriculture around $4 billion per year, 28 an impact of over 10 percent. These issues highlight differentiation is vital between actual and perceived impacts of invasive animals. 29 Unless a species impact is known and quantified, one cannot effectively evaluate the success of a control program. Success is an important aspect of the justification for initiating control programs, especially when such programs have severe consequences on animal welfare. Control Methods Animal populations are controlled by increasing mortality rate (lethal control), reducing birth rate (fertility control), or reducing immigration or increasing emigration. 30 In Australia lethal control methods are most common and include poisoning with baits, 31 fumigation of warrens, trapping, shooting, mustering and biological control. 32 Following is a description of some control methods and an explanation of the associated animal welfare implications. Yellow phosphorous, 33 used to kill pigs, is a potent irritant damaging the gastrointestinal tract and liver. Pigs are lethargic after ingestion. They lie paddling rapidly and usually take two to four days to die. 34 Chloropicrin, a gas used for fumigation of rabbit warrens, is a strong sensory irritant causing profuse watering of the eyes and nasal passage 26 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia s Agricultural Industries 2008 at a Glance, < at 4 September 2009, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia s Agricultural Industries 2008 at a Glance, < at 4 September 2009, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia s Agricultural Industries 2008 at a Glance, < at 4 September 2009, Vertebrate Pests Committee, Parliament of Australia, Australian Pest Animal Strategy: A National Strategy for the Management of Vertebrate Pest Animals in Australia (2007) I. 30 F A M Tuytten and D W Macdonald, Fertility Control: An Option for Non-lethal Control of Wild Carnivores? (1998) 7 Animal Welfare Baits may contain 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate), warfarin, pindone, CSSP (yellow phosphorous) and other chemicals. 32 Biological control has included the introduction of virulent diseases, such as myxomatosis and rabbit calicivirus. 33 The scientific name of yellow phosphorous is sulfur-coated single superphosphate (CSSP). 34 P H O Brien and B S Lukins, Comparative dose-response relationships and acceptability of warfarin, brodifacoum and phosphorous to feral pigs (1990) 17(2) Australian Wildlife Research, 101,

5 and intense irritation of the respiratory tract. Death is by respiratory failure, 35 some rabbits taking up to one week to die. 36 Chloropicrin was utilised as a form of chemical warfare in WWI. 37 Animals poisoned with display signs of lethargy, vomiting, trembling, unusual vocalisations, hyperactivity, excessive salivation, muscular weakness and respiratory distress. This progresses to tetanic convulsions, generalised seizures and death from respiratory failure. 39 Symptoms can last for several hours. 40 A concern with 1080 and other baits is inadvertent killing and welfare implications of non-target animals. There have been reports of a reduction in native animals after 1080 baiting, 41 and in one study less than 10% of 1080 baits were taken up by target species. 42 Examples of Lack of Invasive Animal Welfare Protection Control of invasive animals in Australia is a complex arrangement with variable Commonwealth, State and private responsibilities. The greatest responsibility for the management of established invasive animals rests with the States and Territories. Administration arrangements and responsibility varies between States because legislation developed independently. 43 A survey of control programs, focused on six species of animals, recorded over 2,500 separate invasive animal control programs in Australia. 44 Most of these programs are not coordinated and lead to large fluctuations in management effort and pest populations Animal s Australia, Introduced Animals Fact Sheet (2009) Animal s Australia < at 20 August B Jones and C Marks, Invasion, over-abundance and animal welfare: controlling unwanted wildlife in Australia (Paper presented at the 43rd Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Cairns, Australia, 6 July 10 July 2009) Transcript of presentation, slide Ibid at slide sodium monofluoroacetate 39 M Sherley, Is Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) a humane poison? (2007) 16 Animal Welfare 449, Ibid at Ibid at J C McIlroy,. et all The effect on wild dogs, Canis f. familiaris of 1080-poisoning campaigns in Koscusko National Park NSW (1986) 13 Australian Wildlife Research 535, Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Parliament of Australia, Turning Back the Tide - The Invasive Species Challenge (2004) [2.37]. 44 B Reddiex, et al, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth, Review of existing red fox, wild dog, feral cat, feral rabbit, feral pig and feral goat control in Australia (Audit, 2004). 45 Q Hart and M Bomford, Australia s Pest Animals: New Approaches to Old Problems Revised Edition (2006) Science for Decision Makers, Bureau of Rural Sciences, 5. 5

6 In most jurisdictions, private landholders are responsible for, and obligated to, control invasive animals on their land. 46 For example, the Agricultural and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 (WA) gives owners or occupiers of private land full power to do all that is necessary to control declared animals on and in relation to their land. 47 Problems arise with respect to this expectation. 48 Landholders may lack time, money, knowledge, expertise, equipment or interest to conduct control programs 49 and they are unaccountable. Further issues include the ineffectiveness of control programs if they are not coordinated. Invasive animals do not respect property boundaries and some landholders who are ignorant or neglectful of their obligations can jeopardize the success of an otherwise well-managed program. 50 Many statutes dealing with invasive animal control make no mention of animal welfare and those that do make it clear that only certain animals, such as protected or endangered animals, deserve welfare consideration. For example, section 54 of the Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970 (WA) makes it clear protected fauna enjoy a very different standard of welfare to non-protected fauna. The provision outlines illegal means and devices that may not be used to take (kill) fauna. These include traps likely to cause suffering to trapped animals, 51 explosives, poisons, 52 and others. These provisions are qualified and do not apply to fauna that has been declared to be not protected under section 14 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA). 53 Another example of lack of invasive animal welfare consideration arises indirectly through the registration and approval process of poisonous substances. A recent review of 1080 by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) 54 did not include welfare considerations in their decision to approve the continued registration of 1080 for animal control. The Report conceded there is a strong public concern about the 46 See for example Agricultural and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 (WA) s Agricultural and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 (WA) s 53(1). 48 T Tumaneng-Diete, Wild dogs in Queensland: social and economic issues (Paper presented at the Invasive Animals CRC workshop on the social drivers of invasive animal control, Adelaide July 2006) Hart and Bomford, above n 45, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Parliament of Australia, Taking Control: A National Approach to Pest Animals (2005) [7.3]. 51 Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970 (WA) r 54(6)(b). 52 Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970 (WA) r 54(10). 53 Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970 (WA) r 54(7), (9) and (11). 54 The Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is an independent statutory authority with responsibility for the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia. Its statutory powers are provided in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code scheduled to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Agvet Codes). 6

7 humaneness of 1080; however animal welfare is not a specific criterion under the Agvet Codes 55 so is not taken into account in making decisions about the future use of has been banned for use against mammals in the United States, 57 while Australia uses an average of 200kg each year. 58 A 2005 parliamentary inquiry recommended to amend the legislative criteria under which the APVMA operates to expressly include consideration of animal welfare at the time registration of poisons is first considered. 59 To date no such amendment has been made. Further evidence of inadequate emphasis on animal welfare can be found by examining the inconsistent regulation of the same control method across jurisdictions. A control method frequently gaining attention due to animal welfare concerns is the use of leghold traps, in particular steel-jaw traps. 60 In1863 Charles Darwin declared the leg-hold trap one of the cruelest devices ever invented 61 and offered 50 pounds to the RSPCA as a prize to be won by the inventor of an alternative to the trap years on leg-hold traps are still used in Australia despite being banned in 80 countries 63 because of their negative effect on animal welfare. 64 There is no uniform legislation governing the use of leg-hold traps in Australia and the inconsistency of their permitted use clearly shows the wide discrepancy of emphasis on animal welfare across jurisdictions. In some States such as Tasmania the use of steel-jaw traps is prohibited. 65 Other States have enacted legislation to modify steel jaw traps in an effort to make them more humane. For example, in New South Wales, steel jaw traps are 55 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth). 56 Australia Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Sodium Fluoroacetate final review report and decisions (January 2008), iv. 57 Animal s Australia, Introduced Animals Fact Sheet (2009) Animal s Australia < at 20 August Australia Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Sodium Fluoroacetate final review report and decisions (January 2008) Executive Summary. 59 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Parliament of Australia, Taking Control: A National Approach to Pest Animals (2005) recommendation M Fyfe, In wild dog country, all death is merciless, The Age (Australia), 7 December 2008, available < at 28 September Leg-hold traps are used most commonly for the control of wild dogs and foxes. 61 C R Darwin, Vermin and traps (29 August 1863), 35 Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette S R Harrop, The Dynamics of Wild Animal Welfare Law (1997) 9(2) Journal of Environmental Law, 287, Including the European Union, and eight US States. 64 G Lossa, C D Soulsbury and S Harris, Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and retraining traps (2007) 16 Animal Welfare 335, 335 and Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas) s 12(1). A person can apply to the Minister for an exemption to use a leghold trap: Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas) s 12(2). 7

8 prohibited, 66 while certain restricted traps and padded traps are permitted. 67 In South Australia and Western Australia steel-jaw traps for the control of wild dogs are permitted and the trap s jaws are laced with strychnine. 68 A trapping permit in the Australian Capital Territory allows the use of restricted traps 69 but the legislation 70 fails to give a definition of a restricted trap. Some legislation actually describes steel jaw traps as an inhumane device and then goes on to permit their use. For example, the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) creates an offence against the use of a prescribed inhumane device on an animal. 71 Jawed traps are a prescribed inhumane device, 72 yet as stated they are permitted to be used for the control of wild dogs and foxes. 73 There has been public controversy over the length of time animals are left in traps. In Victoria it is a condition that a trapped animal must not be left alive in the trap for more than 24 hours. 74 This condition is qualified for the trapping of wild dogs where the time can be otherwise approved by the Minister. 75 This provision has been criticised for allowing dogs to be held in traps for up to five days, causing immense suffering to the animal. 76 Improving Humaneness of Control Methods Despite various methods and decades of control, no widespread invasive animal species has ever been eradicated from mainland Australia. 77 Research into control methods typically aims to achieve better control and eradication but there is also increasing focus on improving humaneness. For example, scientists have attempted to make leg-hold traps more humane by padding the jaws of steel-jawed traps and incorporating tranquilisers which aim 66 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 (NSW) s Animal Welfare Regulations 2000 (SA) s.11(1)(d), Animal Welfare (General) Regulations 2003 (WA) r 8(6). The idea behind the strychnine is that a trapped dog will try to bite at the trap or its own body part and ingest strychnine leading to a quick death. Strychnine toxicosis however is associated with significant pain and suffering. 69 Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) s Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) and the Animal Welfare Regulation 2001 (ACT). 71 Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA ) s 19(2)(b). 72 Animal Welfare (General) Regulations 2003(WA) r 3(b). 73 Animal Welfare (General) Regulations 2003(WA) r Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 (Vic) r 32(2). 75 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 (Vic) r 32(2). 76 RSPCA Victoria, Victoria's Shame - Wild Dog Trapping < at 1 September Hart and Bomford, above n 45, 1. 8

9 to sedate an animal once it is caught. 78 Comparative studies have shown padded leg-hold traps cause fewer injuries than unpadded leg-hold traps but at the same time different studies on the same species have found contrasting welfare performance results. 79 While padded traps may cause less physical injuries than steel-jawed traps, they do not prevent tooth damage and anxiety associated with prolonged capture. 80 Longer periods of time spent in traps are associated with greater exertion and more serious injuries. 81 Similarly, tranquilisers are unlikely to improve the welfare of trapped animals under the current legislative framework of invasive animal control. Current laws allow traps to go unchecked for up to three to five days while a sedative lasts only several hours before the animal regains consciousness. 82 Fertility control may provide the key to more humane invasive animal control. While fertility control also carries animal welfare implications, 83 if it is successful by inhibiting breeding, fewer animals will require killing in the future. If animal welfare became a legally enforceable, mandatory consideration under invasive animal control legislation, thus prohibiting the use of inhumane control methods, there would be increasing incentives to develop alternatives, such as fertility control. This is especially important as many research institutes are required to seek external investment to match core funding. 84 Such investment is more likely to be economically viable if new methods will be utilised on a large scale due to unacceptable methods being effectively prohibited on a national level. Conclusion Under utilitarian ethics, the suffering of individual animals must be justified by a greater positive outcome. Hence justification of invasive animal suffering requires the achievement of a significant reduction of the negative impacts caused by these animals. Given a lack of factual evidence and the variable success of control programs, in many cases 78 C A Marks, et al Evaluation of the tranquiliser trap device (TTD) for improving the humaneness of dingo trapping (2004) 13 Animal Welfare 393, Lossa, Soulsbury and Harris, above n 64, Marks, above n 78, Lossa, Soulsbury and Harris, above n 64, For example, the drug diazepam was used in the study of C A Marks, et al Evaluation of the tranquiliser trap device (TTD) for improving the humaneness of dingo trapping (2004) 13 Animal Welfare 393. In dogs diazepam has a plasma half life of hours: D C Plumb, Plumb s Veterinary Drug Handbook, (5th ed 2005). 83 For example, some fertility control methods cause later term abortions which has welfare implications for the breeding female. 84 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Parliament of Australia, Taking Control: A National Approach to Pest Animals (2005) [5.123]. 9

10 this ethical justification is not satisfied. Animals suffer unnecessarily because there is no net benefit. The increasing emphasis on animal welfare is a driving force behind research into more humane control methods. However, if some methods are to be phased out and replaced with more humane techniques in the future, there must be a way to mandate and enforce such a change. This may be achieved by including animal welfare considerations in invasive animal control legislation. If there is no legal compulsion on jurisdictions to utilise more humane control methods, they are unlikely to be taken up, especially when economic incentives favour existing but less humane methods. It is time for Australia to critically evaluate and improve its treatment of the millions of invasive animals that have been conveniently excluded from legal protection in this country. 10