Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series...

Freecall 1800 032 101 Email: [email protected]

Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series No. 1

Feral Goat Ecology and Management in the Western NSW Rangelands: A Review

Feral Goat M

anagement in the W

estern NSW

Rangelands Series No. 1: Feral G

oat Ecology and Managem

ent in the Western N

SW Rangelands: A

Review


A report prepared for the Western Catchment Management Authority by:

DC Solutions

Lead author: Nigel Kimball, contributing author: Mike Chuk

This report can be cited as: Kimball, NP & Chuk, M. (2011). Feral Goat Ecology and Management in the Western NSW Rangelands: A review, Western Catchment Management Authority.

ISBN 978-0-7313-3588-6

This report is available for download in PDF version from the Western CMA website: www.western.cma.nsw.gov.au

Assumptions and disclaimerIn preparing this document, DC Solutions may have relied upon certain information and data generated and provided by the client as set out in the terms of engagement agreed for the purposes of this document. Under the terms of engage-ment, DC Solutions is not required to verify or test the accuracy and/or completeness of such client information and data.

Accordingly, DC Solutions does not and cannot warrant that the client information and data relied upon for the purpose of this report is accurate and complete. DC Solutions therefore does not and cannot accept any responsibility, and dis-claims any liability for errors, omissions or misstatements contained in this report, which have resulted from DC Solutions placing reasonable reliance on such client information and data.

This report has been prepared as part of the Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands project. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Western Catchment Management Authority.

Copyright

© 2011 Western Catchment Management Authority

This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission obtained from Western Catchment Management Authority.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank the following people for their assistance:Heath Cull (NPWS), Yathong NPPeter Yench, ‘Bulgoo’, CobarAshley McMurtie, ‘Gilgunnia’, CobarPaul Whytcross, ‘Kia Ora’, Cobar

Cover: Feral goats trapped in the Broken Hill area.

dcS O L U T I O N S

Feral Goat Ecology and Management in the Western NSW Rangelands: A Review page 2

Table of ContentsList of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Abbreviations & acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Publisher’s note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Key review findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.1. Feral goats - something has to change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2. Review brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3. Study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Introduction and spread of feral goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1. Initial domestication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2. Introduction into Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Distribution and abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1. World distribution and abundance of goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2. Distribution and abundance of goats in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3. Factors affecting distribution and abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.1. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2. Population dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3. Diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.4. Movements and home ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.5. Social behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.6. Parasites and diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5. Environmental, economic and social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.1. Environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.2. Contribution of goats to total grazing pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3. Economic impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.4. Social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6. Approaches to feral goat management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6.1. Control techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.2. Monitoring/tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.3. Integrating control tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.4. Welfare considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7. The feral goat harvest industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7.1. History and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7.2. Domestication as breeding stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7.3. Re-domestication as weed controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.4. Captured and exported alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.5. Slaughtered at abattoirs in Australia and exported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 7.6. Major factors affecting the sustainability of the industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

8. Key conclusions and implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

10. Appendix: NSW listed threatened species at risk from feral goats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78


List of figures

Figure 1: Study area - the Western NSW Rangelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 2: Reported distribution and density of unmanaged goats in eastern Australia in 1992 (Southwell and Pickles, 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 3: Distribution of unmanaged goats in Australia in 2004 (Forsyth 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4: Reported distribution of unmanaged goats in Australia in 2007 (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts, 2008b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 5: Density of unmanaged goats throughout NSW and the ACT during 2002. (West and Saunders, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 6: Density of unmanaged goats throughout NSW and the ACT during 2004 (West and Saunders, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 7: A very good demonstration of the results of different management strategies employed on two properties. On the right side of the fence is an area where typical harvesting occurs; on the left is a tightly controlled TGP fenced area. This photo was taken in a year with good winter rains, but when autumn, spring and summer rains were low. . . . . . . . 39

Figure 8: An example of TGP fencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 9: Basic MVT design for a watering point enclosure suitable for (A) excluding undesirable animals, and (B) suitable for use as a trap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 10: Video and processed images of (A) a goat and (B) a sheep using MVT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 11: Structure of the goat harvesting and processing industry in Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 12: Goat producing properties in Australia (from Meat & Livestock Australia (B Brice 2010, pers comm., 2 September) with overlay diagram showing journey of goats from paddock to plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 13: Approximate contribution of goat breeds and production systems to the national herd (from Meat & Livestock Australia (B Brice 2010, pers comm., 2 September) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 14: Australian live goat exports: 1990–2009 (LiveCorp, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 15: Australian live goat prices: 1990–2009 (United Nations, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 16: Australian live goat exports by mode of travel 2000–2009 (LiveCorp, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 17: Destinations of live goats exported from Australia, 1990-2009 (LiveCorp, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 18: Australian live goat exports by state of origin 1990-2009 (LiveCorp, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 19: Australian goat meat exports 1990–2009 (United Nations, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 20: Australian goat meat (tonnes shipped weight) exports by state of origin 1997–2009 (Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 21: Australian goat meat value exports by country of destination 1996–2009 (Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 22: Locations of the goat abattoirs in Australia (using data from RIRDC 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 23: Australian Goat Skin Exports 1990–2009 (United Nations, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 24: Diagrammatic representation of review recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70


List of tables

Table 1: Summary of estimated numbers of unmanaged goats and the area they occupied from the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2: Area (km2) inhabited by unmanaged goats in NSW. Percentage of the total area of NSW is given in brackets . . . . . 22

Table 3: Reported densities of unmanaged goats for select areas in south-west Queensland 1995–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4: Monthly pattern of conceptions (%) in goats sampled over a 12-year period (in South Australia) for 272 conceptions (R. Henzell, unpublished data cited in (Parkes et al., 1996a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 5: Summary of the expenditure for various goat control techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 6: Costs and effort of some aerial goat control operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 7: Summary of the effectiveness of feral goat control techniques (adapted from Parkes et al. 1996a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Abbreviations and acronyms

CMA Catchment Management Authority

GPS global positioning system

INS invasive native scrub

MVT Machine Vision Technology

NAAP net annual above-ground productivity

RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

TGP Total grazing pressure

Publisher’s noteIn October 2012 the Lower Murray Darling Catchment Management Authority (CMA) was amalgamated into the Western and Murray CMAs. This occurred in the period between the submission of this report and its publication.


Executive summaryLike most natural resource management issues, feral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands is a very complex, multifaceted problem.

The Western Catchment Management Authority (Western CMA), commissioned DC Solutions to review published and unpublished literature relating to feral goat management relevant to the Western NSW Rangelands. It covers feral goat abundance and distribution, biology, ecology, impacts (environmental, social and economic), control techniques, and the goat harvesting industry.

This review is one of five complementary studies on feral goats commissioned by the Western CMA that will guide the development of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region. The stimulus for this work has been the recognition that management of feral goats in much of Western NSW is a significant land management issue. Managing feral goat impacts on groundcover has driven a significant proportion of funding investments made by the Western CMA. These investments have not always resulted in improvements in groundcover, or a reduction in goat numbers at the landscape scale in the region.

There is a vast body of knowledge on the management of feral goats, especially in relation to control techniques and programs. Substantial knowledge also exists on their biology and ecology. However, there are inconsistencies in the reported distribution and abundance of feral goats, and information is very limited at the regional scale. Much of the research has been undertaken by state agricultural departments, and as such has undoubtedly been influenced by state-based policy developments.

The feral goat harvesting industry in the region is an established niche pursuit comprising traditional opportunistic harvesting, full-time goat operations and goat depots. However, despite debate over the past 10 years concerning the ability of the commercial harvesting industry to play a role in managing feral goats, there has been little traction gained in this area – the commercial harvesting industry is still very much divorced from environment-based moves to manage feral goats.

This review suggests that it is time to move beyond the present approaches, which are too often tactical in nature and rely largely on the capacity of individual landholders to implement control techniques such as total grazing pressure (TGP) fencing.

Strategic landscape-scale management of feral goats is required. This could be achieved through planned interventions such as the use of strategically placed TGP fencing, water control and trapping across a number of properties and land tenures. Fencing could be positioned in a way that accounts for goat movement across the landscape as well as for localised management aims. Investment in such infrastructure is warranted especially where landholders pursue dual use (i.e. management of other livestock). The impact on non-target species, particularly large native herbivores, is a prime consideration, and correct design and use is paramount.

This report makes a number of recommendations, ranging from planning and research to capacity building and implementation. These activities are centred around the engagement of a range of stakeholders to exchange information relevant to feral goat management in Western NSW, which will, in turn, inform the development of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region. This could drive the implementation of more collaborative approaches to managing the impacts of feral goats and more broadly, total grazing pressure at the landscape scale. As a result goats could become a sustainable long-term option for land managers in the region, rather than an opportunity driven by seasons, goat migrations and other factors beyond the influence of land managers.


Key review findings

IntroductionFeral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands is a complex problem. It has many underlying facets that •must be considered in any strategic response to feral goat management across the region.A ‘business as usual’ approach will not suffice. Such an approach has not resulted in better outcomes for the •landscape and biodiversity of the region. Things have not gone backwards, but they have not gone forward either. Something has to change.Much investment has been made by the CMAs, with little appreciable effect on the landscape, such as improvement •in groundcover. Any response must focus on minimising the impacts of feral goats where they affect biodiversity. Any response must •also focus on managing the contribution of all goats to total grazing pressure (TGP).The way in which goats are managed (or not) by landholders is a fundamental factor for any type of response.•This review is one of five separately undertaken studies that will feed into the development of a Feral Goat •Management Strategy for the Western Catchment. It summarises and analyses published and unpublished knowledge relating to feral goat management in the region. It also proposes a number of recommendations to guide the development, focus and content of the Strategy, as well as addressing identified gaps in knowledge and understanding.‘Western NSW Rangelands’ refers to the Western CMA and the Lower Murray Darling CMA operational areas.•This review, conducted over a period of five months between July and November 2010, involved examining over 500 •pieces of literature. It also included a field visit to three properties in the Cobar district in August 2010 to observe feral goat management approaches used by landholders in the region.

Introduction and spread of feral goatsGoats were first domesticated around 11,000 years ago in the Middle East.•Recent DNA research suggests that all feral and domestic goats today are descended from a handful of related •animals.During European exploration and colonisation, goats were used as a food resource, and their deliberate release into •the wild (particularly on islands) contributed greatly to their spread around the globe.Goats have been present in Australia since colonisation. They provided a source of sustenance and were typically •managed in a semi-feral state by early settlers.Failed early attempts at starting a goat fibre industry resulted in abandoned herds.•Little recorded knowledge of the introduction of goats into the Western NSW Rangelands could be found during the •review.

Distribution and abundanceGoats occur on all continents (except Antarctica), but are most numerous in the tropical and rangeland areas of Africa •and Asia.‘Feral’ or unmanaged goats are only seen as a widespread problem in New Zealand and Australia. This is because •goat-keeping in Asia and Africa largely consists of low input, extensive grazing by traditional people using methods that have probably not changed for generations. Other livestock is raised in the same way. In Australia, rangeland goats are largely managed with little input in comparison to more intensive methods for other livestock (i.e. control via fencing). The threat posed by goats and their impact on the landscape and biodiversity is slightly greater in Australia than in other rangelands around the world due to Australia’s poorer soils and higher level of endemic species.Goats usually only form unmanaged populations where predators (particularly wild canids) are absent or scarce, •where there are large tracts of land, and where an economic return from a greater degree of management intervention is not available or is not as enticing as alternative land uses.Unmanaged goats occur in all Australian states and territories, but are rare or absent on the mainland of the Northern •Territory. Their greatest numbers are found in the arid and semi-arid pastoral regions of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.Most of the published information on the density and distribution of unmanaged goats is at large scales, often state-•wide, and most is based on aerial survey techniques used primarily to count kangaroos.

The presence and nutritional quality of food species, the availability of water and cover, the presence of natural and •


human predators, diseases, parasites and toxic plants, and complex interactions among these factors are known or suspected to limit the distribution and/or density of unmanaged goats in Australia.

BiologyThe biology and ecology of goats give them an inherent disposition to be invasive and to heavily affect the region’s •landscape and biodiversity. This means they cannot be left unmanaged; however, not all management techniques may be effective.Their dietary and breeding habitats are the primary biological factors underlying this disposition.•Goats are extremely adaptable – not just across varied spatial environments, but also to climatically driven changes •over time (i.e. wet, moderate, dry seasons) – more so than domestic livestock and, perhaps, kangaroos.Movements and home ranges may well be the most evident adaptations or expressions of this tolerance to changes •in climatic conditions. This suggests that control of movement through fencing is an appropriate management response, but not necessarily in all landscapes and under all prevailing seasons.

Environmental, economic and social impactsGoats have a wide variety of direct and indirect impacts on the environment, including impacts on landscape health •and resilience, and on biodiversity.The proportion of this impact is generally less than that compared with other domestic livestock; however, it is •difficult to generalise concerning the shared proportion of impacts.The impact of goats on biodiversity is easier to understand than that on landscape condition. However, there are still •significant gaps in understanding the impacts, and little quantifiable evidence, of goats on native fauna (particularly invertebrates) and on freshwater biota. Economic aspects of unmanaged goats have traditionally been focused on justifying control programs or comparing •control techniques. At the landholder level, it can be demonstrated that harvesting is a driver of management.Social impacts of goats are usually only considered as flow-on effects from environmental and economic impacts.•

Approaches to feral goat managementBroadly speaking there are two drivers underlying goat management – conservation and commercial objectives. •Both use numerous control techniques and result in varying management goals. Control techniques are well-known, tried and tested and apart from MVT (Machine Vision Technology), there has •been no great leap forward over the past 25 years, despite a lot of trialling, etc.TGP fencing is a suitable control technique for the eastern parts of the region. It is economically feasible to roll out •and overcomes trapping water in higher rainfall areas.

The feral goat harvest industryThe national herd consists of an estimated 2.5–5.5 million goats of which 90% are feral or unmanaged.•The harvest industry is well-established and increasingly becoming mainstream, as a permanent part of rangelands •grazing enterprises or as standalone operations.There are 9,552 goat-producing properties Australia-wide; 4,033 are in New South Wales. Despite this, the industry is •still considered by most as an ‘emerging’ or ‘niche’ pursuit.The sustainable development of the industry would be an opportunity to better manage goats across the regional •landscape, if inherent factors affecting the sustainability of the industry can be overcome, and more vigour and effort is directed towards engaging the industry as a whole.

Key conclusions and implicationsThe biggest failure to date concerning the management of goats and their impacts on the landscape and biodiversity •has been a misplaced focus on the tactical responses to the problem.Goats will remain a component of the landscape and must be managed. Energy should focus on managing the •impacts of goats where they affect biodiversity (species, ecological communities), and landscape condition.Generally, isolated and/or ‘as needed’ control efforts (e.g. exclusion fencing, National Parks control programs) can be •undertaken in relation to biodiversity, but for landscape condition, widespread sustained control is required.

Managing the impacts of goats on landscape condition cannot be done in isolation from domestic livestock and •other herbivores.


RecommendationsRecommendation 1Undertake an oral history project to record and collate the community’s recollection of goats and goat management in the region.

Recommendation 2Ensure future efforts aimed at measuring goat distribution and abundance in the region:

occur at finer scales•occur at regular intervals•be purposely undertaken to measure goat distribution and abundance.•

Recommendation 3Establish a goat monitoring and goat impact monitoring program as part of the Feral Goat Management Strategy, or integrate goat monitoring into existing regional monitoring activities.

Recommendation 4Investigate the positive and negative influences of harvesting on the rate of increase of unmanaged goat populations across wet, moderate and dry seasons in the eastern and western parts of the region.

Recommendation 5Investigate the relationship between vegetation cover, goat breeding/birth rates and rates of population increase.

Recommendation 6Investigate whether the average harvesting age of 24 months results in older core breeding females contributing the greatest to population increase in herds.

Recommendation 7Investigate the net harvest rates required to theoretically outstrip the rate of increase in a goat population under wet, moderate and dry seasons in the eastern and western parts of the region.

Recommendation 8Undertake scenario modelling (e.g. more individuals harvested but less frequently, versus less individuals harvested but more frequently) using theoretical harvest rates and rates of population increase to compare the differences in adopting varying harvest target numbers.

Recommendation 9Educate landholders about goat management (dispelling common myths about goats) - this should be a focus in the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy.

Recommendation 10Address the biosecurity implications of unmanaged goats, and the risk posed to other livestock found in the region in tandem with other aspects of goat management. This is an important on-farm and regional issue.

Recommendation 11Investigate the comparative contributions to soil degradation by goats and domestic livestock.

Recommendation 12Develop a much better understanding of the interaction of goats and their impact on invasive native scrub (and vice versa). Researchers should conduct contemporary co-grazing trials in thickened areas to examine various and emerging co-grazing systems (Dorper, etc.) and their impact on invasive native scrub.

Recommendation 13Investigate the impacts of goats on the biota of natural waterways such as waterholes and mound springs.

Recommendation 14Investigate the impact of goats on invertebrates.


Recommendation 15Undertake a detailed examination of the direct and indirect impacts of goats on native fauna (both positive and negative).

Recommendation 16Investigate historical data on goat population densities and harvest off-takes to determine the effectiveness of commercial harvesting to control goats in the region.

Recommendation 17Goats and grazing management should always be viewed in the context of TGP, based on the long-term carrying capacity of individual country types.

Recommendation 18Develop an easy-to-use method, possibly using dung counts, for landholders (or groupings of landholders) to be able to accurately estimate goat numbers.

Recommendation 19Develop more effective pasture-based indicators of grazing pressure to allow landholders to judge when and by how much it should be adjusted.

Recommendation 20Investigate production constraints to co-grazing of goats and sheep (such as Dorpers).

Recommendation 21Examine the economic value and costs of goats to the regional economies of Western NSW. This is probably best advanced as part of an Economic Development Plan for the Rangeland Meat Goat Industry.

Recommendation 22Undertake a stakeholder analysis exercise as part of the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy, including the development of a Stakeholder Management Plan.

Recommendation 23Survey landholders’ attitudes towards goats, goat management and their levels of participation in harvesting as part of the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy. This survey needs to include absentee landholders.

Recommendation 24Review Western CMA TGP fencing guidelines to clarify design and construction issues identified in the recent Western CMA Incentives Program audit. Include issues such as fence design, correct tensioning and the positioning of floodgates.

Recommendation 25Review the Western CMA Incentives Program to encourage the undertaking of group-based TGP fencing projects to allow for strategic placement of fence lines across the landscape. This could be done through offering greater amounts or proportion of funding to group-based participants undertaking landscape-scale strategic TGP fencing.

Recommendation 26Develop a landscape-based feral goat management pilot project. This could involve one or more rangecare/landcare groups to implement a ‘neighbourhood’ goat management plan.

Recommendation 27Include a study into the likely effects on wildlife of the widespread use of TGP fencing in the region in the landscape-based feral goat management pilot project.

Recommendation 28Undertake a trial of Machine Vision Technology traps in western parts of the region to control goats accessing artificial watering points.

Recommendation 29Trial the use of GPS collars/tags in the region. This will determine the feasibility of using this technology to inform landholders, via a public tracking website, of goat movements around the region.


Recommendation 30Ensure that animal welfare considerations are a prominent feature of any goat management control and harvest effort, and that they are funded accordingly.

Recommendation 31Engage Meat & Livestock Australia to develop and provide a profile of the region’s goat harvest industry.

Recommendation 32Partner with land management funders (such as Caring for our Country), feral goat harvest industry players (such as NSW Ag, Meat & Livestock Australia, RIRDC, etc.) to deliver funding for the development (and implementation) of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region. This may involve developing an investment case for a strategy.

Recommendation 33Develop a classification system for rangeland goat management systems to aid in the implementation of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the Western NSW Rangelands.

Recommendation 34Develop a sustainability scorecard as part of a classification framework for goat management systems, so that the biodiversity and landscape impacts of different management systems can be compared and communicated to the community.

Recommendation 35Establish geographical goat management zones across the region as part of developing the Feral Goat Management Strategy. This will determine landscape/‘neighbourhood’ management aims and guide control effort and investment in each zone.

Recommendation 36As a precursor to the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy, the Western CMA should host a summit inviting all stakeholders to discuss feral goat management in the region and the development of a strategy.

Recommendation 37The Western CMA should hold a regional roadshow to engage the community in the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy


1. Introduction

Key pointsFeral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands is a complex problem. It has many underlying facets •that must be considered in any strategic response to feral goat management across the region.

A ‘business as usual’ approach will not suffice. Such an approach has not resulted in better outcomes for the •landscape and biodiversity of the region. Things have not gone backwards, but they have not gone forward either. Something has to change.

Much investment has been made by the CMAs, with little appreciable effect on the landscape, such as •improvement in groundcover.

Any response must focus on minimising the impacts of feral goats where they affect biodiversity. Any response •must also focus on managing the contribution of all goats to TGP.

The way in which goats are managed (or not) by landholders is a fundamental factor for any type of response.•

This review is one of five separately undertaken studies that will feed into the development of a Feral Goat •Management Strategy for the Western Catchment. It summarises and analyses published and unpublished knowledge relating to feral goat management in the region. It also proposes a number of recommendations to guide the development, focus and content of the Strategy, as well as addressing identified gaps in knowledge and understanding.

‘Western NSW Rangelands’ refers to the Western CMA and the Lower Murray Darling CMA operational areas.•

This review, conducted over a period of five months between July and November 2010, involved examining over •500 pieces of literature. It also included a field visit to three properties in the Cobar district in August 2010 to observe feral goat management approaches used by landholders in the region.

1.1 Feral goats - something has to changeLike most natural resource management issues, feral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands is a very complex, multifaceted problem. For example, feral goats are not the only large grazing animals in the region and therefore, are not the sole contributors to overgrazing and biodiversity issues. They have economic value exported either live or as meat, and over the years large numbers have been commercially harvested from the region, contributing to Australia’s feral goat harvesting industry.

Unlike in Australia’s agricultural zone, where goats are typically more intensively farmed and tightly constrained by high fencing, the intensity of goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands varies considerably. This reflects the different landholder attitudes towards goats, which range from ignoring them as a commercial resource, to opportunistic harvesting to boost cash flow, managing them to maximise profitability, or treating them as a pest.

Despite decades of harvesting, increasing invasive species legislation, policies and control programs, and funding to address the threat posed by feral goats, their impacts on the landscape and biodiversity of the region remain a critical problem. These impacts may well be much greater except for the enormous amounts of time, effort and money poured into feral goat management by landholders, biodiversity managers and pest agencies. It is clear a ‘business as usual’ approach will not reduce either the threat posed by feral goats or their current on-ground impact in the region. Something has to change and that something needs to be driven by the regional community for the regional community.

In recognition of the complex, multifaceted nature of feral goat management in the region, the focus of any response to the problem should be on minimising the impacts of feral goats wherever they affect biodiversity. Feral goats can (and should) be managed for productive purposes in the context of total grazing pressure (TGP), while still maintaining biodiversity values. Furthermore, the focus should be to abate the impacts of feral goats where they are not actively managed, while allowing for the responsible farming of goats. For this reason this review, like the Commonwealth threat abatement plan for goats listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, refers mainly to the impacts of ‘unmanaged’ goats.

As per the threat abatement plan, ‘unmanaged’ goats are those that are free-living and not subject to livestock husbandry but may be ‘owned’ in the sense that access for harvesting or control is determined by the owner or occupier of the land. This is in contrast to ‘managed’ goats, which are those held under some combination of animal husbandry (owned,


identified, restrained, managed for population structure and density, and receive welfare). Some goats may have one or more of the characteristics of managed goats, but in all other respects can be indistinguishable from unmanaged animals with no husbandry (after Forsyth and Parkes 2004). Forsyth and Parkes explain the distinction but use the terms feral and domestic goats.

This paper uses the term ‘feral’ when discussing goats in general (their biology, etc) and then uses ‘managed’ when discussing their management/husbandry.

1.2 Review briefThe Western Catchment Management Authority (Western CMA), with the Lower Murray Darling Catchment Management Authority, commissioned DC Solutions to conduct a review of published and unpublished material relating to feral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands.

This review was undertaken as part of a suite of five complementary studies that will feed into a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region, currently being developed by the Western CMA.

The other four studies are:

Review of Feral Goat Regulatory and Strategic Framework1.

The Feral Goat Industry and Implications for Groundcover2.

Economic analysis of Feral Goat control within the Western NSW Rangelands3.

Feral Goat Population Trends in the Western NSW Rangelands4.

The driver for this body of work by the Western CMA has been recognition that funding investments made to date by the CMA have not made a broader change in groundcover, or goat numbers, at the landscape scale in the region. This may be due to the scale of projects undertaken, which have been largely property focused through the provision of devolved grants to landholders.

The primary motivation for the development of the strategy is the adoption of a strategic outlook for feral goat management across the Western NSW Rangelands. Such an outlook may yield more efficient spending of existing funding, and leverage new funding for feral goat management.

The objectives of this review were to:

review and summarise information concerning the distribution and abundance of goats in the region (Section 3)•

review and summarise knowledge of goat biology (Section 4)•

review and summarise information covering the environmental, social and economic impacts of goats in the region •(Section 5)

summarise techniques for the control of feral goats (Section 6)•

identify gaps and opportunities for further work, and make recommendations on the broad directions for the •development of a Feral Goat Management Strategy.

It is important to note that material related to legislation, regulations, strategies, guidelines and policies about feral goat management was outside the scope of this review. This is included in the concurrent, sister project reviewing the policy framework relating to feral goat management in the Western NSW Rangelands.


1.3 Study areaThe term ‘Western NSW Rangelands’ refers to the Western CMA and the Lower Murray Darling CMA operational areas shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Study area - the Western NSW Rangelands

The Western CMA covers some 230,000 square kilometres, making it the largest operational area for a CMA in New South Wales. The Queensland border and South Australian border bound it to the north and west, and the Trans-Continental Railway Line (through Broken Hill) to the south. The Barwon River and part of the Bogan River form the eastern boundary.

The Western Catchment is not a ‘catchment’ in the traditional sense. A catchment is usually thought of as an area directly associated with a river basin or a river and its tributaries. The Western Catchment is mostly drained by a series of ephemeral rivers, the most prominent of which is the Barwon-Darling River System. Other drainage systems include the Culgoa, Paroo, Warrego, Narran, Bokhara, Birrie, the Bullo Overflow, parts of the Bogan River and, in the north-west, part of the Lake Frome catchment of the Lake Eyre Basin.

The Western Catchment is unique compared to other catchments in New South Wales because it not only encompasses a whole series of river systems, some of them seasonal, but because it also includes the largest and most diverse areas of natural rangelands within New South Wales.

The area takes in significant portions of the Bourke, Brewarrina, Central Darling, Cobar and Walgett Shires and the Unincorporated Area. The Catchment is predominantly leasehold land administered under the Western Lands Act 1901 by the Land and Property Management Authority.

There are more than 630 pastoral and agricultural holdings in the Catchment. The population of the Western Catchment is approximately 18,000 people. Predominant land uses in this semi-arid zone are grazing, dryland cropping, irrigated cotton production, mining, tourism and nature conservation. Bourke, Brewarrina, Cobar, Walgett, Lightning Ridge and Broken Hill are the major service centres of the region.

The Lower Murray Darling Catchment covers an area of approximately 63,000 square kilometres in south-western NSW. The catchment extends from Broken Hill in the north to the Murray River in the south and from the Murray/Murrumbidgee junction to the South Australian border in the west.


The catchment incorporates the entire local government areas of Wentworth and Broken Hill City, the majority of the Balranald Shire and a small area administered by the State Government. The population of the Lower Murray Darling Catchment is estimated at 29,000.

1.4 MethodologyA literature review is an objective, thorough summary and critical analysis of the relevant available research and non-research literature on the topic being studied. Its goal is to bring the reader up-to-date with current literature on the nominated topic and form the basis for another goal, such as the justification for future research in the area. In this case, the goal is to inform the development of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the Western NSW Rangelands by the Western and Lower Murray Darling CMAs.

With the task and goal in mind, the authors designed the literature review in phases around the steps involved in undertaking a traditional literature review. A traditional literature review critiques and summarises a body of literature and draws conclusions about the topic in question. It is typically selective in the material it uses, although the criteria for selecting specific sources for review are not always apparent to the reader.

Over 500 journal articles, books, websites, factsheets, newsletters and other material from both government and academic sources were reviewed as part of the study. Both published and non-published works were sourced and selected using a loose set of criteria and key words that were developed by the authors.

The review was undertaken over five months between July and November 2010, and included a field visit to three properties in the Cobar district in August 2010 to discuss the approaches to feral goat management used by landholders in the region.

This report presents the results of our review. It summarises and analyses the knowledge pool relating to feral goat management and based on this, identifies broad directions and recommendations for future action in the region.


Introduction and spread of feral goats1.

Introduction and spread of feral goats2.

Key pointsGoats were first domesticated around 11,000 years ago in the Middle East.•

Recent DNA research suggests that all feral and domestic goats today are descended from a handful of •related animals.

During European exploration and colonisation, goats were used as a food resource, and their deliberate •release into the wild (particularly on islands) contributed greatly to their spread around the globe.

Goats have been present in Australia since colonisation. They provided a source of sustenance and were •typically managed in a semi-feral state by early settlers.

Failed early attempts at starting a goat fibre industry resulted in abandoned herds.•

Little recorded knowledge of the introduction of goats into the Western NSW Rangelands could be found •during the review.

Initial domestication2.1. Goats were among the first domesticated ungulates, adapted from the wild goat (Capra aegargus). Domestication involved both a cultural process in which the goat was integrated into human society as property (Ducos 1989) and a biological process in which the owners select for desirable characters (Clutton-Brock 1992).

In a recent investigation by Zeder and Hesse (2000), it was suggested domestication occurred about 10,000–11,000 years ago when Neolithic farmers in the Near East began keeping small herds of goats for their milk and meat, for their dung for fuel and for materials for clothing and building: hair, bone, skin and sinew.

The Neolithic domesticators of wild goats probably selected animals that bred over a longer season to provide milk and kids over more of the year. Animals that lactated for longer than wild goats, became pregnant while still lactating, regularly produced several kids per pregnancy and did it all at an early age would have been highly prized by Neolithic goat herders. Goats with wide dietary preferences would have given their nomadic herders greater flexibility, while variable coat colours may have aided in recognition of individuals and ownership, and served aesthetic purposes.

Through the use of DNA research, Fernandez et al. (2006) suggested that all goats today are descended from a small number of animals that may have been domesticated in several different places. Archaeological data suggest two distinct places of domestication: the Euphrates River Valley at Nevali Çori, Turkey (9000 BC), and the Zagros Mountains of Iran at Ganj Dareh (8000 BC) (Zeder and Hesse 2000).

Other possible sites of domestication with archaeological evidence include the Indus Basin in Pakistan at Mehrgarh (9000 BC) and central Anatolia and the southern Levant (Joshi et al. 2004), Cayönü, Turkey (8500–8000 BC), Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria (8000–7400 BC) Jericho, Israel (7500 BC), and Ain Ghazal, Jordan (7600–7500 BC) (Zeder and Hesse 2000).

The ability of goats to use the coarse browse of such mountainous areas made them suitable for domestication in preference to sheep. With the spread of domesticated goats throughout the world, it was only a matter of time before they escaped and established feral herds in the wilds of most continents.

Domestic goats and their feral1 descendants are gregarious, move short distances, and have wide dietary preferences and high productivity. Today, the more than 300 breeds of domestic goats live in climates ranging from high altitude mountains to deserts. Although the genetic origin of these breeds is now more certain (see Fernandez et al. 2006) their taxonomic status is still not clear (Schaller 1977), as are their genetic inter-relationships (Mason and Corbould 1981).

1 Feral animals are defined as those domesticated species that have escaped all ownership, management and control of people and are living and reproducing in the wild.


Introduction into Australia2.2. The present feral goat populations in Australia are descended from animals introduced for a variety of reasons from 1788 onward. The commissary of the First Fleet lists 19 animals of unstated breed that were used as a source of meat, milk and fibre during the voyage (Rolls 1969).

Goats were popular transportees on long sea voyages because they were easier to keep alive than other potential providers of milk and meat and the practice was a long held naval tradition. Goats were listed in the manifests of most Spanish and Portuguese explorers from the 15th century, who were responsible for their release in the West Indies and a few Pacific Islands (Lever 1985).

In addition to their use for meat and milk aboard, goats were liberated on many oceanic and coastal islands as sources of food for shipwrecked or transient mariners. For example, Captain Cook liberated goats on many islands, including New Zealand and Hawaii (Lever 1985). It was a practice carried on by 19th century whalers and sealers (e.g. Raoul Island (Parkes 1984)) and was still practised in the early 20th century on subantarctic islands (Rudge 1990).

Goats were taken to Philip Island in the early 1800s to provide sport for the prison officers and food for the Norfolk Islanders. They were reported as common by 1838 (Taylor 1966), but had gone by 1870 (Hermes et al. 1989). Goats were thriving in Tasmania in 1822 (Rolls, 1969), arrived in South Australia with the first settlers in 1836 (Parkes et al. 1996a) and were taken by explorers into the Flinders Ranges in the 1840s (Aitken 1980).

Whalers, sealers and naval officers released goats on many Australian islands during the 19th century. Liberations by whalers or sealers are recorded for islands off the south coast of Western Australia (Abbot 1978; Long 1988) and on Lord Howe Island (Pickard 1976). The navy liberated goats on Moreton Island in the 1860s (O’Brien 1983).

Goats were introduced to the inland areas of Australia by early settlers, miners and railway construction workers for use as a source of meat and milk (Mahood 1983) and were always among the first livestock introduced into many settlements.

Isolated properties kept goats not only for milk and meat, but also as beasts of burden (Jago 1999). Often kept in a semi-feral state, goats were free to forage during the day and return to holding yards at night. This freedom allowed the domestic goats to mingle with, or form, feral populations (Ramsay 1994).

Cashmere goats were introduced to South Australia in 1837 (Parkes et al. 1996a), and more serious attempts were made to start a goat fibre industry using angora and cashmere goats from about 1860 until 1900 (Evans 1980; Parkes et al. 1996a; Jago 1999). Herds were founded by the Victorian Acclimatisation Society in 1862 (Rolls 1969), from which other states eventually obtained animals. For example, 50 goats were sold to West Australian interests on Faure Island in about 1870 and upgraded with South African angoras in the early 1900s (Clarke 1976), and others were sold in New South Wales in the mid-1860s (Rolls 1969).

Domestic goats escaped, were abandoned, or were deliberately released, and these animals established feral herds in a process that continues to this day. Little reference to the spatial distribution over time of Australia’s feral goat herds can be found in the literature, but it is reasonable to suggest that, given favourable habitat, feral goats established themselves in an area of settlement within 5–10 years of occupation by Europeans.

Some major events give rise to clues concerning the past abundance of feral goats. Historically, feral goat numbers have increased on several occasions because of the collapse of the goat fibre industry (namely cashmere, angora and mohair) (Jago 1999). When the industry failed in the late 1800s, large numbers of goats were abandoned, leading to an increase in the feral population (Long 1988). The goat fibre industry experienced resurgence in the early 1900s, only to decline around the same time as the wool crash in the 1960s. The 1990s saw a shift back towards natural fibres (in preference to synthetic) and has caused the industry to increase again. This includes the export of feral goats for angora breeding stock.

Little published evidence concerning the history of the introduction of goats to the Western NSW Rangelands could be found. Conversations with landholders during the field trip to the region revealed that feral goats did not become an obvious issue until after the 1950s when invasive native scrub started to spread. Prior to the 1950s goats were only confined to the ranges and mallee. This suggests either cover and/or browse mixture as a source of the region’s feral goat issue.


Recommendation 1Undertake an oral history project to record and collate the community’s recollection of goats and goat management in the region.

Today’s Australian feral goat population is composed of a mixture of Angora, Cashmere, Anglo-Nubian, British Alpine, Saanen and Toggenburg breeds. A significant number are Cashmere although the proportion varies between regions. The present feral population reflects the mixed origins of the fibre, meat and milk goat breeds (Agri-Focus Pty Ltd 1996).


Distribution and abundance3.

Key pointsGoats occur on all continents (except Antarctica), but are most numerous in the tropical and rangeland •areas of Africa and Asia.

‘Feral’ or unmanaged goats are only seen as a widespread problem in New Zealand and Australia. This •is because goat-keeping in Asia and Africa largely consists of low input, extensive grazing by traditional people using methods that have probably not changed for generations. Other livestock is raised in the same way. In Australia, rangeland goats are largely managed with little input in comparison to more intensive methods for other livestock (i.e. control via fencing). The threat posed by goats and their impact on the landscape and biodiversity is slightly greater in Australia than in other rangelands around the world due to Australia’s poorer soils and higher level of endemic species.

Goats usually only form unmanaged populations where predators (particularly wild canids) are absent •or scarce, where there are large tracts of land, and where an economic return from a greater degree of management intervention is not available or is not as enticing as alternative land uses.

Unmanaged goats occur in all Australian states and territories, but are rare or absent on the mainland •of the Northern Territory. Their greatest numbers are found in the arid and semi-arid pastoral regions of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Most of the published information on the density and distribution of unmanaged goats is at large scales, •often state-wide and most is based on aerial survey techniques used primarily to count kangaroos.

The presence and nutritional quality of food species, the availability of water and cover, the presence of •natural and human predators, diseases, parasites and toxic plants, and complex interactions among these factors are known or suspected to limit the distribution and/or density of unmanaged goats in Australia.

World distribution and abundance of goats3.1. Domestic goats have been introduced to all continents (except Antarctica). They live under a wide range of climates and conditions, but are most numerous in the tropical and rangeland areas of Africa and Asia (Gall 1981). In 1983, the estimated world population of goats (domestic and feral) was 450 million (Devendra and Burns 1983).

Feral goats are also widespread but occur in large numbers only in Australia (Harrington 1982) and New Zealand (Rudge 1990). Smaller populations are present elsewhere around the world, for example, in Britain and Ireland (Whitehead 1972) and on many offshore and oceanic islands (Rudge 1984). During European exploration and colonisation before and throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, sailors on long sea voyages introduced goats onto these islands. Saint Helena Island, the Juan Fernandez Islands, and Hawaii are but a few well-known examples.

It should be noted that the use of the word ‘feral’ to describe goats is a point of view and based on a value judgement. In Australia and New Zealand, this term has tended to mean unmanaged/undesired goats, and has led to a simplified view of goat management. The use of just the terms ‘domestic’ and ‘feral’ does not recognise the varied management systems under which goats are kept, both in Australia and around the world.

In the United States and South Africa goats are successfully managed as a rangelands species. Depending on location and situation, goats are used as weed controllers or as browse converters and the animal products are essentially meat and fibre (mohair). With high production per head and reasonable prices on the export market, goat production is well managed, profitable and beneficial to range stability. The difference between Australia and the United States is that the latter has a greater proportion of goats are under more intensive management.

In Asia and Africa goats are used to exploit the range and supply poorer agricultural communities with meat and milk. Herds are managed less intensively, perhaps at the same level as in Australia, but the dynamics are different. The role of goats in rangeland degradation is thought to be similar, in that it is not in isolation, but it may be significantly less prominent in Africa due to the presence of a greater number and variety of gazing animals, effectively diluting their direct impacts. In both regions alternative land use opportunities are limited and so the role of goats in degradation would not be viewed as a critical issue.


Goats usually only form unmanaged populations where predators (particularly wild canids) are absent or scarce, where there are large tracts of land, and where an economic return from a greater degree of management intervention is not available or is not as enticing as alternative land uses.

Distribution and abundance of goats in Australia3.2. Unmanaged goats occur in all Australian states and territories, but are rare or absent on the mainland of the Northern Territory. Their greatest numbers are found in the arid and semi-arid pastoral regions of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia (Parkes et al. 1996a), but their greatest densities occur in areas of higher rainfall (Fleming 2004). Goats prosper in sheep-producing regions where dingoes have been eliminated, i.e. inside the Dingo Barrier Fence.

Isolated populations of unmanaged goats occur in the higher rainfall and agricultural areas in Victoria, Tasmania, eastern New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and south-west Western Australia. These goats survive mainly in areas where patches of scrub or forest offer protection from human intervention.

Feral goats also occur on many Australian offshore islands (see Rudge (1984) and Morris (1989) for partial lists). These include islands with important conservation values, such as Lord Howe Island (Pickard 1976) and islands in the Recherche Archipelago (Morris 1989).

Most of the published information on the distribution and density of unmanaged goats is at large scales, often state-wide, and most is based on aerial survey techniques used primarily to count kangaroos (Caughley and Grigg 1981). Distribution maps, and sometimes density maps have been published in the literature at various times since the 1970s (see Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Aerial surveys have been used to detect changes in the distribution and density of unmanaged goat populations, however several limitations with their use have been recognised. First, early surveys were not corrected for differences in visibility, something which was recommended by Bayliss and Yeomans (Bayliss and Yeomans 1989). As a consequence, most surveys since 1989 appear to use correction factors (Pople et al. 1996). Second, goat numbers at low densities are difficult to detect, meaning that real changes in distribution may go undetected. This issue is likely to be acute at the low survey intensities employed for goats (1.3% coverage, see Pople et al. 1996), and means that some reported increases in range might be an artefact of changing goat densities rather than real changes in their distribution. Third, the precision of aerial surveys is low and usually decreases as the density of goats declines, making it difficult to estimate changes in goat distribution and abundance.

Despite these caveats, broad-scale surveys have shown some changes in goat distribution and abundance over the past few decades (Table 1).


Table 1: Summary of estimated numbers of unmanaged goats and the area they occupied from the literature.

Year Australia Western South New South Queensland Australia Australia Wales

Numbera

1982 720,000 450,000 160,000 60,000 50,0001983 200,000–

350,0001987 - 615,000 - - -1989 - - 245,000 - -1990 - 1,095,000 450,000 - -1991 - - 310,000 - -1992 - - 215,000 1,180,000 400,000b

1993 2,625,000c 755,000 290,000 - -1994 - - 260,000 - 400,000d

1995 - - 240,000 - -1996e 2,600,000

Area occupied (km2)a

1982 985,000 290,000 125,000 255,000 315,0001992–93f 1,210,000 480,000 130,000 330,000 270,000b

1996 e 1,200,0002002 306,6782004 307,069

a The 1982 data are from (Harrington 1982), except for the figure for Queensland which is from (Mitchell et al. 1982). The 1982 Queensland figure determined by Harrington was based on an extrapolation from New South Wales data, and was probably wrong. The estimates for later years are from (Grigg et al. 1992), (Southwell et al. 1993) and other sources. The estimates from 1982 were made using several methods, and those from 1987–1993 were taken from aerial surveys. The Flinders Ranges were not surveyed in the South Australia aerial surveys from 1989–1993, and the following estimates were added to the South Australian totals: 1989 – 80,000; 1990 – 120,000; 1991 – 100,000; 1992 – 80,000; 1993 – 60,000; 1994 – 50,000; and 1995 – 40,000. Aerial survey counts have been adjusted by a correction factor of 1.68.

b A slight underestimate because some goat-infested pastoral areas in Queensland were not surveyed.

c Includes the 1992 estimates for New South Wales and Queensland.

d Aerial survey data.

e Data from Parkes et al. 1996a

f Data from Western Australia and South Australia from 1993, and elsewhere from 1992.


Figure 2: Reported distribution and density of unmanaged goats in eastern Australia in 1992 (Southwell and Pickles 1993)

Figure 3: Distribution of unmanaged goats in Australia in 2004 (Forsyth 2004)

Area of feral goat commercial harvest

Feral goat distribution

Dingo Fence


Figure 4: Reported distribution of unmanaged goats in Australia in 2007 (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008b)

Although goats are widespread across New South Wales (see Figure 5 and Figure 6), their distribution and ecology changes from east to west (West and Saunders 2007). In eastern NSW, they live in isolated, high-density populations with small home ranges, and can get their water requirements from forage (Fleming 2004; West and Saunders 2007). In contrast, in the rangelands of Western NSW their populations are contiguous (West and Saunders 2007), although lower in density with larger home ranges and they must drink regularly to meet their water requirements (Sarawaswat and Sengar 2000).

According to West and Saunders (2007), who examined changes in the abundance of unmanaged goats in New South Wales between 2002 and 2004, goats expanded their range slightly between these two surveys and, in 2004, concluded goats inhabited 38% of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (see Table 2).

Throughout this range goats were reported to occur mainly at low and medium densities, but with some high-density populations in areas of north-western NSW and small areas within the Northern, Central and Southern Slopes regions. Small increases were detected in the Lower Darling, Upper Darling and Northern Plains regions. Several small areas scattered throughout the Northern Plains, Northern Tablelands and Hunter regions also experienced small increases.

At the same time, small decreases were observed in wide areas throughout the Upper Darling and Far West regions, and in many small locations throughout the South Coast, Snowy Mountains, Blue Mountains, and Central Slopes regions. The observed decreases in density throughout Western NSW are likely to be the two-fold result of drought and commercial harvesting operating in that area (West and Saunders 2007).

Table 2: Area (km2) inhabited by unmanaged goats in NSW. Percentage of the total area of NSW is given in brackets)

Year Goat density Total area of NSW High Medium Low Absent occupied

20041 23,628 133,932 149,509 496,923 307,069 (3%) (17%) (18%) (62%) (38%)

20022 32,153 110,016 164,509 512,811 306,678 (4%) (13%) (20%) (63%) (37%)

1 West and Saunders 20072 West and Saunders 2003

Figure 5: Density of unmanaged goats throughout NSW and the ACT during 2002 (West and Saunders 2003)

Figure 6: Density of unmanaged goats throughout NSW and the ACT during 2004 (West and Saunders 2007)

page 23 Feral Goat Ecology and Management in the Western NSW Rangelands: A Review


Recorded densities of unmanaged goats in the literature are varied (Table 3), with one study in western Queensland recording an average of 10/km2 (Thompson et al. 2002) and another study during 1991–93 recording 24/km2 near Wanaaring (Landsberg and Stol 1996).

Table 3: Reported densities of unmanaged goats for select areas in south-west Queensland 1995–2002.

District Biogeographic Region Density Reference

Cunnamulla Mitchell Grass 10-24 /km2 Thompson et al. 1999

Paroo River/Wyandra Mulga Lands 5-11 /km2 Thompson et al. 1999

Ward River/Augathella Mulga Lands 1-10 /km2 Thompson et al. 1999

Blackall Mulga Lands 6-20 /km2 Thompson et al. 1999

Blackall Mulga Lands5.1-23.5/km2 Pople et al. 1996

South-west Queensland

Mulga Lands 1.14 /km2 Lee and Cremesco 1995

Western Queensland 10 /km2 Thompson et al. 2002

Wanaaring NSW 24/km2 Landsberg and Stol 1996

Most of the available maps and data focus on the extensive distributions of goats. Smaller unmanaged goat populations, with patchy distribution, are found throughout the rangelands. Patchiness and connectivity between goat populations are critical parameters in deciding which populations of goats might be eradicated and which might be controlled in perpetuity regardless of harvesting or conservation objectives. Finer scale surveys are required here.

Recommendation 2Ensure future efforts aimed at measuring goat distribution and abundance in the region:

occur at finer scales•occur at regular intervals•be purposely undertaken to measure goat distribution and abundance.•

Recommendation 3Establish a goat monitoring and goat impact monitoring program as part of the Feral Goat Management Strategy, or integrate goat monitoring into existing regional monitoring activities.

Factors affecting distribution and abundance3.3. The presence and nutritional quality of food species, the availability of water and cover, the presence of natural and human predators, diseases, parasites, toxic plants, and complex interactions between these factors are known or suspected to limit the distribution and/or density of unmanaged goats in Australia.

General habitat requirements3.3.1. Feral goats prefer areas of rough ridges or dense trees, shrubs and logs to which they can escape. In Western NSW, the highest densities of unmanaged goats occur in hilly terrain with tree or shrub cover that permits evasion of predators and human control activities.

A dung count survey of the densities and distributions of sheep, kangaroos and feral goats across three paddocks in the wooded rangelands of north-western New South Wales, found the relationship between distribution and vegetation cover was significant. This was true across wet, moderate and dry seasons, and for goats, it was found that upper cover (trees and shrubs) was the most important during all seasons (Landsberg and Stol 1996).

Feral goats are often found in conservation areas because they provide extensive cover from predators and human control. For example, there are large numbers of unmanaged goats inside the Dingo Barrier Fence where the control of dingoes provides a relatively safe environment for the goats.


Food3.3.2. Goats are generalist herbivores (Harrington 1986), and the density of edible vegetation in Australian rangelands is sufficiently high that it rarely limits the distribution of unmanaged goats. However, the type and nutritional quality of the vegetation are highly variable and are affected by the amount and frequency of rainfall that, in turn, affects the number of goats an area can support. For example, goats do not reach high densities in areas dominated by spinifex. Anecdotal evidence suggests their numbers are also limited by the poor nutritional quality of drought-affected grasslands, although not so much by drought-affected shrub lands (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Water and droughts3.3.3. Some goats, particularly those in temperate and wet climates, can survive in areas with no permanent fresh water as they obtain most of their water from their food. For example, on Macauley Island (in the Kermadec Group, New Zealand) unmanaged goats had a stable density of 10 goats per hectare without access to permanent fresh water (Williams and Rudge 1969). Goats on Esk Island in the Palm Group, Queensland (Dunson 1974), and on several islands in the Galapagos Group (Dunson 1974; Merrill and Taylor 1981) also survive without access to permanent fresh water.

Goats on Aldabra Atoll (Burke 1990) and at Zuytdorp Cliffs, north of Kalbarri, Western Australia (G. Pickles cited in Parkes et al. 1996a) are reported to survive by drinking seawater. Burke found no unusual morphological effects on the goats’ kidneys resulting from this behaviour, but Pickles found the Australian goats that had drunk saltwater would die when chased or stressed.

For the most part, however, goats need to drink water, so they are found only where water is available. The proliferation of artificial watering points, such as tanks and bores for watering stock in Western NSW, has allowed unmanaged goats to expand further than would otherwise be the case (Fensham and Fairfax 2008; Russell et al. 2010). Fencing of these watering points has been shown to affect goat dispersion and distribution in the rangelands and goat numbers can be reduced at a local scale by manipulating access (see Russell 2010, p 396).

An average size goat of 33 kilograms, eating one kilogram of dry matter per day, requires 2–4.5 litres of water per day, depending on ambient temperature, humidity and reproductive state – lactating goats drink more (Morand-Fehr 1981) and, during summer, need to drink at least every two to three days (Dawson et al. 1975; Fleming 2004). Water consumption increases rapidly when ambient temperatures exceed 42°C (Norbury 1993).

The reduced availability and quality of water during prolonged droughts must affect the densities of goats, although data to show this are limited. Some information shows that recruitment into the population is depressed in times of drought. For example, at Fowlers Gap (near Broken Hill, New South Wales) recruitment fell by 44% during the 1977–78 drought (McRae 1984), and at Canegrass, north of the Murray River in South Australia, recruitment of kids fell by about 35% during the 18-month-long drought of 1982–83 when rainfall declined 63% from the long-term average (Henzell 1993).

In the latter case, most or all of the reduced recruitment was caused by a reduction in the proportion of nannies that were pregnant, rather than by increased mortality among new-born kids. In contrast, breeding continued during the 1977–78 drought in Western NSW (Mahood 1985). Individuals with the highest metabolic needs were most adversely affected by drought. Lactating females were in poorest condition and the growth rate of kids was slowed. This was particularly evident among the faster growing male kids whose growth rates declined from about 120–150 grams per day to 60 grams per day during the drought (Henzell 1993). In contrast, individuals with lower metabolic needs appeared hardly affected by the drought. Some mature males, for example, were very fat even at the height of the drought, possibly because they could save energy at times when few females were reproductively receptive.

Work at Canegrass by Henzell (1993) showed that perennial vegetation was abundantly available, and provided the bulk of goats’ diet throughout the 13-year study. The perennial plants retained enough nutritional value during the drought to provide an adequate maintenance ration for the goats and, unlike annual vegetation, they continued to provide fruit and flowers for goats to eat. In contrast, anecdotal reports indicated that in areas where perennial shrubs were less common, such as parts of the Flinders Ranges, goats did not fare so well.

Natural mortality must increase during droughts for a number of additional reasons. Goats can become too weak to pull themselves from mud around drying earth dams. Some refuse to leave their home range and die of thirst when water holes dry, and others may fall into rock holes while attempting to reach receding water levels (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008b).

Compared to domestic livestock, goats generally fare better in moderate to dry times, largely due to their browsing behaviour. If times are dry enough, the condition of animals will suffer, but they will usually be the ‘last man standing’.


Natural predation3.3.4. Dingoes, feral dogs and their hybrids, foxes, wedge-tailed eagles, and feral pigs are all predators of goats. Dingoes and feral dogs are the main predators and clearly affect goat distribution, as goats are rarely present unless dingoes or feral dogs are absent or regularly controlled to low densities. There are many examples where the presence of uncontrolled populations of dingoes has restricted the distribution of unmanaged goats or where the removal of dingoes has allowed unmanaged goats to spread:

Goats were present in the Kimberley Region (Western Australia) in the 1950s and 1960s but have now mostly gone •(Long 1988), due in part to the reduction in dingo control following removal of sheep in the 1970s (Seddon 1968). Similarly, goats were on Murnpeowie Station (immediately north of the dingo fence between Lake Eyre and Lake Frome, South Australia) when sheep were run there and dingoes were controlled (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Unmanaged goats have been present in the more rugged parts of the North Flinders Ranges (South Australia) since •they escaped from miners last century, but only became a major problem after dingoes were removed in the 1940s. Similarly, unmanaged populations of semi-feral goats persist near station homesteads where they presumably gain some relief from dingoes, for example, at Rosewood Station, Northern Territory, 90 kilometres from Kununurra (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Goats were released in the Musgrave Ranges (in north-west South Australia), but failed to persist, probably because of •the presence of dingoes (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Dingoes were released onto Townsend Island (Queensland) in 1993 to successfully control goats (Allen and Lee 1995).•

There are exceptions to the ‘dingoes = no goats’ rule. Feral goats and low populations of dingoes occur in the Ngarkat Conservation Park (in south-east South Australia), goats and dingoes co-exist in the Australian Capital Territory, and it is possible that some of the isolated populations of goats in the Great Dividing Range (in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland) are sympatric with dingoes (Wilson et al. 1992).

The evidence for predation of goats by other animals is mostly based on their effects on domestic goats. Foxes killed an average of 3.6% (range 0.5–7.0%) of newborn domestic goats in Western Australia (Long 1988; Mawson and Long 1992), and foxes and/or feral pigs killed up to 30% of kids in a New South Wales study (Mitchell 1977). Feral pigs are significant predators of lambs in Australia (Pavlov and Hone 1982) and they are likely to prey on kids. Wedge-tailed eagles take kids, particularly where there is no cover (Mitchell 1977). Whether any combination of these predators (excluding dingoes) is capable of affecting the distribution or density of goats is unknown. However, as most seem to only take kids, it is unlikely that these predators have a significant effect on the size of goat populations.

Hunting by people3.3.5. It is unclear whether hunting by Aboriginal peoples restricted the establishment of herd populations in the early years of European settlement. Escaped domestic animals would have been easy prey for experienced hunters, but it is likely that most hunting by Aboriginal peoples ceased before dingoes were effectively controlled. It would appear that predation by dingoes rather than hunting by Aboriginal peoples was the decisive factor that limited the establishment of herds. Feral goats still provide a source of fresh meat for Aboriginal peoples living in remote communities.

Today, goats are harvested across most of their range using a variety of methods (Section 6.1), as a commercial pursuit (Section 7), and/or to manage their numbers or limit their dispersal and negative impacts on the environment and agricultural production (Section 5).

This human predation is the decisive limiting factor in the higher rainfall agricultural areas of Australia, particularly in the flatter, more open range pastoral areas from which dingoes have been removed.

Diseases and parasites3.3.6. A number of potentially debilitating parasites and diseases occur among goats in Australia (see Section 4.6). It is unlikely that parasites and diseases have any major impact on the density or distribution of unmanaged goats in the dry pastoral areas, partly because the browsing habits of goats reduces their intake of parasite eggs (Chevis 1980) and because arid climates do not favour transmission of pathogens. The influence of parasites and diseases in wetter areas is less clear.


Poisonous plants3.3.7. Despite their tolerance to many toxic plants (Section 4.3), the presence of some plant species may limit the distribution and/or density of goats. The toxic tree, ironwood (Erythrophleum chlorostachys), along with dingoes and melioidosis, has been implicated in the absence of goats from the Top End of the Northern Territory (Parkes et al. 1996a).

There are 35 species of Australian plants (in the genus Gastrolobium plus Acacia georginae) that contain the potent vertebrate toxin fluoroacetate (Aplin 1971), the sodium salt of which is the pest control poison 1080. The distribution of these plants (see Twigg and King 1991) does not generally coincide with the distribution of unmanaged goats (Wilson et al. 1992), except for the area north of the Kalgoorlie to Perth Highway. It has been suggested by Wilson et al. (1992) that the absence of goats in south-west Western Australia is due to the presence of 1080-bearing plants.


Biology4.

Key pointsThe biology and ecology of goats give them an inherent disposition to be invasive and to heavily affect •the region’s landscape and biodiversity. This means they cannot be left unmanaged; however, not all management techniques may be effective.

Their dietary and breeding habitats are the primary biological factors underlying this disposition.•

Goats are extremely adaptable – not just across varied spatial environments, but also to climatically driven •changes over time (i.e. wet, moderate, dry seasons) – more so than domestic livestock and, perhaps, kangaroos.

Movements and home ranges may well be the most evident adaptations or expressions of this tolerance to •changes in climatic conditions. This suggests that control of movement through fencing is an appropriate management response, but not necessarily in all landscapes and under all prevailing seasons.

Morphology4.1. In the Western NSW Rangelands, goats are predominantly mixed colours of black, white and brown. The head and body length of male goats is 120–162 centimetres, with an average of 150 centimetres. Female head and body length is 114–147 centimetres, with an average of 133 centimetres. Adult males (over three years of age) can weigh up to 60 kilograms while female goats weigh up to 45 kilograms. Generally, the range of colours and the variation in goat body size reflect the mixed origins of the original stock (Ramsay 1994).

Feral goats weigh about 2.6 kilograms at birth (McDonald et al. 1988). Male kids are heavier than females, a difference they retain throughout their lives. These weights appear typical of animals for pastoral areas (McRae 1984; I. Mahood, unpublished data cited in Harrington 1982), and are within the range of weights for the dairy and angora breeds likely to have been their domestic ancestors (Mason and Corbould 1981).

Population dynamics4.2. Population dynamics of unmanaged goat herds are determined by the difference between recruitment (births + immigration) and losses (natural deaths + emigration) (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Population structure4.2.1. Goat populations consist mainly in separate male and female herds, which mix during the breeding season (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Equal numbers of male and female kids are born in most unmanaged goat populations (Parkes 1993), although Mahood (1985), working in Western NSW, found a ratio of male to female foetuses of 0.68:1.0, which is significantly different from unity (P<0.05).

Fortune favours females as their proportion in many populations increases among older age classes. There are significantly more males in harvested populations (1 female:0.8 males, n = 909, McRae 1984) than in unharvested populations (1 female:0.6 males, n = 1047, P<0.01, Williams and Rudge 1969), showing that the bias in favour of females is not because males are selectively removed by mustering or culling.

Harvesting or culling unmanaged goats can alter the natural age structure of populations. Feral populations that are commercially mustered in Australia are heavily biased towards young animals, with about two-thirds of the animals being less than two years old (Ramsay 1994). In contrast, the goats that survived longest during the eradication campaign on Raoul Island were mostly elderly females, presumably because they were more cunning than males and young animals (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Under favourable environmental conditions, goat populations can increase by up to 50% each year (Mahood 1985; Maas and Choquenot 1995; Parkes et al. 1996a; Fleming 2004), a statistic frequently used in justifying goat control programs.


The role that harvesting – under both favourable and adverse environmental conditions – may play in long-term goat population growth is not well understood. Given goats are still such an issue, this suggests three things: (a) harvesting is not helping; (b) control techniques are not working; and/or (c) these activities are not resulting in the removal of goats quickly enough.

Recommendation 4Investigate the positive and negative influences of harvesting on the rate of increase of unmanaged goat populations across wet, moderate and dry seasons in the eastern and western parts of the region.

Breeding season and birth rates4.2.2. The wild ancestors of domestic and feral goats have breeding patterns typical of temperate ungulates with a relatively narrow mating season spread over two to three months during autumn and winter (Schaller 1977). Shortening day length, fine-tuned by temperature or rainfall-controlled food supply factors, is thought to determine the onset of breeding (Roberts 1967; Schaller 1977). Significantly fewer conceptions occur in spring (Table 4).

The evolutionary advantages of this breeding system have been explained first by temperate-region seasonality, so that the median date of birth coincides with optimum conditions for the mother and young (Sadleir 1969) and, second, by the reduced effects of predators caused by providing a glut of potential victims (Estes 1976). This is particularly so when the prey species has highly developed young which follow adults (Rutberg 1987).

However, there are so many variations on this basic pattern that the influence of day length must be easily overridden by other environmental cues. For example, it is accentuated by drought when mating is restricted to the January–March period (McRae 1984). Some populations studied have shown secondary or, occasionally, sole breeding peaks in summer (Parkes 1993), and one population (studied for 18 months on Santa Catalina Island, California) showed four annual peaks of breeding spaced about three months apart (Coblentz 1978; Coblentz 1977).

Table 4: Monthly pattern of conceptions (%) in goats sampled over a 12-year period (in South Australia) for 272 conceptions (R. Henzell, unpublished data cited in Parkes et al. 1996a)

Month J F M A M J J A S O N D

% of conceptions 9 14 13 6 11 11 4 6 1 4 7 14

Generally, Australian populations experience two breeding seasons per year (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008a). It is not known if there is a relationship between vegetation cover and breeding season/kidding (i.e. more cover equals more kids more frequently due to better nutrition), like there is with distribution.

Recommendation 5Investigate the relationship between vegetation cover, goat breeding/birth rates and rates of population increase.

Birth rates of unmanaged goats can be high because of the higher proportion of females in some populations. Female goats that generally weigh at least 15 kilograms can potentially commence breeding as young as three months of age depending on favourable seasonal conditions, although six months is more likely. All sexually mature female goats in a herd may come into oestrus at about the same time, and it is thought that this is synchronised by male sexual activity (Shelton 1960).

Feral goats have an average of three pregnancies in a two-year period, with an average of 1.59 embryos per pregnancy (Parkes et al. 1996a). Offspring have an average birth weight of 2.6 kilograms. The gestation period is 150 days (Henzell 1993), and while the first birth is likely to be a single kid, twins and triplets are common thereafter.

Feral goats in areas with a more-or-less regular food supply can breed all year round (Rudge 1990), but they usually retain the ancestral, distinct peak in conceptions during the time when day length is shortening and have significantly fewer conceptions in spring (Parkes 1993).


The young are born away from the herd and left in a protected area while the mother grazes for food nearby. When the kids are approximately five days old, they will accompany the females as they feed and continue to be suckled for up to 60 days. Females with a kid at foot are often pregnant (Henzell 1983).

Fecundity increases with age and reaches a maximum among females at about 21 months (four-tooth stage) and older, but declines in aged adults with worn teeth (Henzell 1983; Parkes 1993). The reduced fecundity of old females makes little difference to population birth rates in harvested herds in Australia because the proportion of older animals is low. The optimum harvesting age and the relationship with fecundity should be investigated to find out whether the average harvesting age of 24 months is resulting in older core breeding females contributing the greatest to population increase.

Recommendation 6Investigate whether the average harvesting age of 24 months results in older core breeding females contributing the greatest to population increase in herds.

Maternal condition, generally governed by food supply or quality, can have a profound effect on birth rates. For example, birth rates increased by 77% in a population of goats on Raoul Island as the per capita food supply increased during a decade-long goat eradication campaign (Parkes 1984).

Harvesting or culling per se does not appear to increase the birth rates of Australian populations, presumably because few populations are at carrying capacity. However, declining food quality during droughts can cause a decline in breeding (McRae 1984). Such a hypothesis needs to be examined (refer to Recommendation 4).

The breeding season is an important factor when considering the timing of management activities (trapping/mustering for either culling or harvesting). Thompson et al. (2002) suggests that control programs would be best targeted prior to major kidding periods to avoid the difficulties associated with the movement or trapping of young animals.

Natural mortality rates4.2.3. Natural mortality of kids from birth to six months can be high. On Macauley Island (in the Kermadec Group, New Zealand) 35% of kids died (Williams and Rudge 1969) and, in one population on the North Island of New Zealand, 19% died (Rudge 1969). Estimates of natural mortality from Australian populations are usually confounded by unnatural mortality from mustering or culling.

Mahood (1985) found post-natal mortality in kids up to two months old was 45% in Western NSW. A South Australian study found mortality rates (from a combination of natural and human induced factors) equal to 38% (Henzell 1983).

While the normal lifespan of domestic goats is 12–15 years (Gall 1981), in feral goats it is 10–12 years, and is likely due to nutritional factors. The natural mortality rate among older goats is estimated at 10% and is mostly attributed to old age and misadventure (Jago 1999).

Rates of increase4.2.4. Given favourable conditions, feral goats have the potential to increase their numbers in a relatively short period. The potential for unmanaged goat populations to grow is estimated by their instantaneous exponential rate of increase.Subtraction of likely natural mortality rates (38% of kids and 10% of adults) from the known finite birth rate of 2.02 from South Australia (R. Henzell, unpublished data cited in Parkes et al. 1996a) gives a finite rate of increase of 1.53 or an instantaneous exponential rate of 0.425. In other words, such a population would double every 1.6 years in the absence of mortality that is caused by human control efforts, and would require a harvest offtake of 35% to prevent herd increase. Mahood (1985) recorded a maximum rate of increase for unmanaged goats in Western NSW of 0.395, meaning a harvest offtake of 42% of the population per year would be required to prevent a long-term increase in goat numbers.

Any recommendations concerning target harvest rates are difficult to make. By target harvest rates, we mean the percentage of the population that must be removed in order to outstrip a herd’s rate of increase in the absence of mortality caused by human control efforts.

Thompson et al. (2002) suggests an instantaneous harvest rate greater than 20–30% would be needed to achieve


substantial long-term reductions in a population. Instantaneous harvest rate is calculated by dividing the harvest offtake per year by the average population size for the period of interest (Caughley 1977). Freudenberger and Barber (1999) suggests the removal of 80% of a population would result in the maintenance of low goat numbers on a property.

Recommendation 7Investigate the net harvest rates required to theoretically outstrip the rate of increase in a goat population under wet, moderate and dry seasons in the eastern and western parts of the region.

Most measurements of natural rates of increase of unmanaged goat populations are confounded by harvesting. Few unmanaged goat populations in the pastoral zone are not harvested, and past aerial surveys show that some populations increased despite harvesting. For example, the population increased by 18% each year between 1987 and 1990 in Western Australia, despite an annual harvest averaging about 200,000 goats (Southwell and Pickles 1993), suggesting control efforts during that period were futile.

Recommendation 8Undertake scenario modelling (e.g. more individuals harvested but less frequently, versus less individuals harvested but more frequently) using theoretical harvest rates and rates of population increase to compare the differences in adopting varying harvest target numbers.

Any examination of harvest rates and rates of increase to inform goat contribution to TGP should also include an examination of carrying capacity. Short-term and long-term outlooks are needed so that short-term effort and reward does not counter long-term effort and reward. What is better: 40% control target of a population per year or 10% per quarter? Perhaps some scenario planning or modelling could be carried out to investigate this.

Ecological carrying capacities4.2.5. The ecological carrying capacity of an unmanaged goat population is the density attained when the goats reach equilibrium with their resources, natural predators and competitors in the absence of human-induced mortality (Caughley and Grigg 1981). The equilibrium is, of course, only as stable as the environment under which the goat/vegetation system exists. This is highly variable for the drought-prone pastoral areas of Australia, and may be declining as the rangelands degrade.

The carrying capacity for feral goats can be very high. Goats were left for 150 years on Macauley Island and when eradicated in the 1960s were at a density of 1000 per square kilometre (Williams and Rudge 1969).

At least 20 goat-sized herbivores per square kilometre can be supported in rangelands with annual rainfall of 240 millimetres (Bomford and Hart 2002). Estimates of actual goat densities in arid and semi-arid rangelands vary from 0.5 per square kilometre in central and south-eastern Western Australia to 5 per square kilometre in eastern South Australia (mean annual rainfall 240 mm). In areas of higher rainfall, such as Coolah in the Great Dividing Range in central eastern New South Wales (mean annual rainfall 740 millimetres), goat densities have been estimated at between 26 and 98 per square kilometre (Fleming 2004).

Goat contribution to total grazing pressure and sustainable carrying capacity in the context of livestock grazing is discussed in Section 5.2.

Diet4.3. Goats are generalist herbivores that select the highest quality food available (McCammon-Feldman et al. 1981). They eat grasses, herbs, shrub and tree foliage, twigs, bark, flowers, fruit and roots. They will also eat plant litter and seeds on the ground, as well as fungi. The proportions of different kinds of food (browse, grass, herbs) in their diet, and of different species within these groups, varies with availability, quality and palatability (Merrill and Taylor 1981).


A common misconception among landholders is that goats eat everything all the time. Although the reasons for differences in intake between forage types and species are not well understood (Becker and Lohrmann 1992), in Australia any one of shrubs, grasses or herbs may comprise the principal part of goats’ diet at different times or places (Wilson et al. 1975; Dawson et al. 1975; Squires 1980; Harrington 1986).

Recommendation 9Educate landholders about goat management (dispelling common myths about goats) - this should be a focus in the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy.

Herbs and grasses are mainly eaten when they are growing, and are more uniformly acceptable than browse because they generally lack the secondary plant compounds that render some shrub species unpalatable. Despite this selectivity, goats can eat the majority of plants in the pastoral areas of Australia, including prickly acacias, many poisonous or bitter plants, and species avoided by sheep and cattle. Their feeding habits in more temperate regions tend to be seasonal (O’Brien 1984).

As generalist herbivores, goats can occupy a variety of habitats (Coblentz 1977). They prefer woodland to grassland, and in arid or semi-arid areas where they cannot obtain enough water from forage and dew their ranges centre around water sources (Fleming 2004). Goats need to drink every two to three days during summer (Dawson et al. 1975; Fleming 2004), but can otherwise extract most of their water requirements from their food.

Movements and home ranges4.4. In areas with ample water and food, feral goats have small, non-exclusive home ranges generally of about one square kilometre, with males having larger ranges than females. For example, on Moreton Island (Queensland), male and female groups occupied about 1.5 and 1.0 square kilometres, respectively (O’Brien 1984), similar to home ranges of feral goats on a pasture/forest margin in New Zealand (Riney and Caughley 1959) and on the summit of Mount Haleakala (Maui, Hawaii) (Yocum 1967).

Pastoral zone fences are typically not goat-proof, so goats can move freely from property to property. Here, they centre their movements on permanent water (King 1992; McRae 1984), and have much larger, non-exclusive home ranges. On Yerilla Station (Western Australia) adult female, sub-adult female, adult male, and sub-adult male goats had average home ranges of 69, 63, 247 and 379 square kilometres respectively, as measured by radio-telemetry over a period of 23 months (King 1992). The maximum individual home range was 600 square kilometres. Ranges were smaller in drier periods, presumably because the goats had to visit water more frequently (King 1992). The data provided for Broken Hill populations confirm these large home ranges (McRae 1984).

Home ranges and movements both have implications (type and timing) for control techniques and programs. Holt and Pickles (1996) found that aerial control activities had little effect on the home range of resident feral goats. Where goat movement and habitat use has been studied in relatively flat terrain, feral goats have a strong fidelity to a relatively small core area (Freudenberger and Barber 1999).

This contrasts with Sharp et al. (1999) who reported that annual removal of substantial numbers of goats had relatively little effect in rocky and hilly reserves, presumably due to re-invasion from surrounding pastoral properties. Thus, movement of feral goats may be influenced by topography, habitat quality, harvesting pressure and feed availability (Freudenberger and Barber 1999).

Social behaviour4.5. Feral goats are social animals. The basic social unit is an adult female and recent offspring (Parkes et al. 1996a) which associate in an area (the herd range) with similar, often related, groups (O’Brien 1988). Young males leave these matriarchal groups and form loose associations with similar-aged males or larger mixed-aged groups which associate with the female’s home range during the breeding season, but may range over larger areas at other times (Rudge 1990). Although the females tend to stay together in groups, they will frequently share resources with male groups.


Females about to give birth leave the group and kid in a protected spot. Kids are fully active soon after birth, but most, although not all, are hidden by their mothers and only visited for feeding until, after a few days, they join their mother on her travels (O’Brien 1983; Rudge 1970).

In Queensland a common group size is 1–20 goats (Thompson et al. 1999). Larger groups of up to 200 goats do occur, especially in times of drought.

Group size can also change on both a daily and seasonal basis. If palatable vegetation and water is readily available, group size will decrease and many small groups will scatter across an area to feed and drink. If vegetation and water is limited to certain areas, goats will ‘mob up’ leading to an increase in group size. Disturbance, such as mustering, causes higher numbers of smaller groups as goats break from the herd and scatter to increase their chances of evading capture.

Territories often include trails, shelter, feeding and watering areas shared with sheep and cattle. Even though they are habitual in their use of an area, there is no evidence that goats actively defend territories.

Feral goats are most active in the early mornings and in the late afternoon or in times of disturbance.

Parasites and diseases4.6. Goats are prone to a number of diseases currently in Australia, including Q fever, tetanus, leptospirosis, hydatids, pulpy kidney and blackleg.

BacteriaOf significant concern to human health is the Q fever-causing bacterium Coxiella burnetti, which is widespread among unmanaged goats (seroprevalence2 of 52% in one study (Parkes et al. 1996a). Although usually non-pathogenic in goats, Q fever can cause pneumonia, hepatitis and death in humans, and C. burnetti is considered the most infective organism in the world, with a single cell capable of infecting a person (Maurin and Raoult 1999). In 1980, an outbreak of Q fever was reported in Victorian abattoir staff involved in the slaughter of feral goats (Henderson 2009). A more recent case affecting townsfolk not involved in meat preparation occurred in 2007 at Waikerie in South Australia where a cluster of Q fever cases (one of which was fatal) were linked to inhalation of contaminated dust from the local abattoir (Pedler 2007).

Melioidosis, caused by the zoonotic3 bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei (reclassified from Pseudomonas pseudomallei), is endemic in tropical Australia, with sheep and goats particularly susceptible (Choy et al. 2000). It is likely to be responsible for the absence of goats in the Northern Territory’s Top End (Parkes et al. 1996a). Melioidosis is an emerging disease in people, associated with a high morbidity and mortality, particularly in Indigenous Australians (Cheng et al. 2003). Another zoonotic bacterium reported in feral goats is Corynebacterium ovis, which causes caseous lymphadenitis (abscesses in lymph nodes) (Parkes et al. 1996a; Batey et al. 1986).

Other non-specific bacteria, ‘faecal coliforms’, have been identified from feral goats in studies of possible sources of water supply contamination (Ferguson 2005). A report of Mycobacterium bovis infection in a goat was found, although this involved a domestic goat (Cousins et al. 1993).

Parkes et al. (1996a) comment that other important diseases of livestock (such as yersiniosis, leptospirosis and mycobacterial diseases such as Johne’s disease and bovine tuberculosis) ‘appear to be rare’ in feral goats. Johne’s disease is a nationally notifiable animal disease of concern to livestock industries generally. Goats can host both ovine and bovine strains of Johne’s disease, so feral goats are a potential source of transmission to livestock in areas where the disease is endemic (primarily the south-eastern states). The Goat Industry Council of Australia introduced a national goat health statement in 2009 that included a risk rating system for Johne’s disease (also known as paratuberculosis), to help the 8000 goat producers Australia-wide provide information about the health status of their goats for sale (Fairfax Digital 2009).

VirusesCaprine arthritis/encephalitis virus infection has been reported in goats in South Australia (Surman et al. 1987). A retroviral4 infection of goats, caprine arthritis/encephalitis incidence is sporadic and it can lead to chronic disease of the

2 The number of persons in a population who test positive for a specific disease based on serology (blood serum) specimens.3 An infectious disease that can be transmitted (in some instances, by a vector) from non-human animals, both wild and domestic, to humans.4 A virus where the RNA is reverse-transcribed into DNA, which is integrated into the host cell’s genome.


joints and, on rare occasions, encephalitis in goat kids.

HelminthsFeral goats are known to carry 22 nematode, two cestode, two trematode, four arthropod and three protozoan parasites (Parkes et al. 1996a and references therein). This is a much smaller list than that quoted for New Zealand goats (Rudge, 1990). Many of these helminths (parasitic worms) can infect domestic sheep and all can infect domestic goats. The most common health problem causing goat deaths in the Northern Territory is worms (ABC Rural News 2008). A link has been suggested between goats and the occurrence of hydatid tapeworms in cattle in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where cattle populations were uninfected in previous surveys (Lymbery et al. 1995).

Cattle ticks (Boophilus microplus) rarely occur on goats (Sangster 1990), and have not been reported from goats.

ProtozoaEnteric coccidiosis is an economically important parasitic disease, particularly of neonatal domestic goats, that has been reported in feral goats (Main and Creeper 1999). Coccidiosis of Brunner’s (duodenal) glands in feral goats that died during overseas transport to the Middle East was described by Main and Creeper (1999), who concluded the condition was likely caused by the protozoan Eimeria sp., and that stress associated with transport contributed to severe coccidiosis and death.

Many other important livestock diseases are known to be carried by goats, but have not been reported from Australia. Should it reach Australia, foot and mouth disease seems the most likely to establish in unmanaged populations. Other exotic diseases which feral goats could be infected by, should they reach Australia, include bluetongue, rinderpest, screw-worm fly, capripox, Rift Valley fever, vesicular stomatitis and scrapie.

Recommendation 10Address the biosecurity implications of unmanaged goats, and the risk posed to other livestock found in the region in tandem with other aspects of goat management. This is an important on-farm and regional issue.


Environmental, economic and social impacts5. Key points

Goats have a wide variety of direct and indirect impacts on the environment, including impacts on landscape •health and resilience, and on biodiversity.

The proportion of this impact is generally less than that compared with other domestic livestock; however, it is •difficult to generalise concerning the shared proportion of impacts.

The impact of goats on biodiversity is easier to understand than that on landscape condition. However, there •are still significant gaps in understanding the impacts, and little quantifiable evidence, of goats on native fauna (particularly invertebrates) and on freshwater biota.

Economic aspects of unmanaged goats have traditionally been focused on justifying control programs or •comparing control techniques. At the landholder level, it can be demonstrated that harvesting is a driver of management.

Social impacts of goats are usually only considered as flow-on effects from environmental and economic impacts.•

Environmental impacts5.1. Often landscape degradation involves the mismanagement of all the natural and domestic herbivores (French 1970; Dunbar 1984), but because goats can survive and reproduce in these degraded habitats, and are seen to do comparatively well in dry times, they are often made out to be the culprit for all degradation suffered.

While goats have been responsible for severe or even catastrophic environmental damage to ecosystems that evolved without browsing mammals, such as on islands (Parkes 1990), in ecosystems adapted to some browsing, their effect is variable.

There are no documented examples of goats on mainland Australia severely damaging large areas in the absence of significant populations of other herbivores. However, they do contribute their share of the damage to vegetation, soils and native fauna in the large areas of overgrazed pastoral land. Their share is generally less than that of other herbivores, although this has more to do with their later introduction to the pastoral lands than sheep, and to spasmodic control by landowners rather than to any inherent incapacity to reach high densities and cause severe damage.

Coutts-Smith et al. (2007) quantified the threat posed by feral goats (as part of a broader study of pest animals) on a cross-section of biodiversity in New South Wales. This assessment was achieved by examining the described threats to 972 threatened species in New South Wales. These are those species (i.e. mammals, birds, fish, insects, plants, fungi and algae), populations and ecological communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994. Approximately half of them are also listed under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Feral goats were identified by Coutts-Smith et al. (Coutts-Smith 2007) as posing a threat to 94 threatened species in New South Wales (see Appendix A). Goats were identified as a threat to more threatened species overall than any other pest herbivores (rabbits (86), feral pigs (81), deer (19), and feral horses (15)), and 59 species were threatened because of grazing/browsing alone. Of the 94 identified species, 33 are found in the Western CMA region. Three ecological communities also identified as under threat from goats are also found in this region.

Because of their impact on the environment, competition and habitat (land) degradation by feral goats are legislated as key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Impact on the soil5.1.1. Feral goats can deplete the soil’s protective cover of vegetation and break up the soil crust with their hooves (Mahood 1983). This leads to wind erosion in droughts, water erosion in rainstorms, and can cause slips in steep lands.


Recommendation 11Investigate the comparative contributions to soil degradation by goats and domestic livestock.

Impact on perennial vegetation5.1.2. Feral goats may affect perennial vegetation by eating established plants and by preventing regeneration of seedlings. Browsing by goats can kill established plants by defoliation (especially those less than about two metres tall) or by de-barking their trunks. Regeneration processes may be affected indirectly when goats reduce the ability of plants to produce seeds, and directly when goats eat young plants. The results of ungulate browsing can be sudden and catastrophic if both adult and young plants are killed, with the degree of catastrophe depending on the dominance or importance of the affected species within the ecosystem. Alternatively, effects can be delayed if only young plants are killed, but are eventually catastrophic when the adult plants die off.

Perennial plants in Australia range from highly palatable (Harrington 1986) to totally unpalatable and toxic (Aplin 1971). Goats are particularly prevalent in habitats with perennial shrubs and trees, and most are, ultimately, eaten by goats if they are hungry enough.

The overall impact of unmanaged goats in Australian perennial shrublands is not clear. Perhaps this is because goats have not been present over sufficiently large areas for long enough, or in sufficiently high densities, for their effects to be more obvious, and because their impacts are confounded with those of other herbivores.

A general fail-safe management response is to assume that even very low densities of unmanaged goats will be sufficient to inhibit nearly all regeneration of the most palatable shrub species. However, in an exclosure study in the Flinders Ranges (Henzell 1991), rabbits rather than goats and euros (Macropus robustus) appeared to determine regeneration success in mulga (Acacia aneura); rabbits killed nearly all the seedlings before they were large enough to be of interest to the other herbivores. It was also clear that other factors outside the experimental control were involved, and that mortality in adult trees occurred in the absence of goats.

The lesson here is that management of only one herbivore, in this case the goat, would fail to protect perennial vegetation.

Impact on grasses and herbs5.1.3. Theoretically, ungulates grazing grassland/herbaceous ecosystems where they have more-or-less permanent access to all of the plants should result in feedback mechanisms that drive the plant-herbivore biomasses towards dynamic equilibria (May 1976). In semi-arid grasslands in Australia, the stability of these equilibria depends on erratic rainfall.

Goats could have a more immediate effect on grasses and forbs than on shrubs and trees because they are more accessible and because they are generally more palatable, containing fewer secondary compounds than shrubs or trees. For example, goats that were short of food in a study near Cobar (New South Wales) ate every herb but did not significantly affect most shrub species (Harrington 1982). In many other habitats, however, the goats’ preference for palatable browse results in them having a larger effect on shrubs and trees.

Impact on invasive native scrub5.1.4. One apparent consequence of 130 years of grazing by introduced animals on the semi-arid areas in Australia has been the proliferation of unpalatable shrubs or invasive native scrub (also referred to as invasive native scrub). It has been suggested, at least for Western NSW and south-western Queensland, that these weeds have increased partly because of reduced competition from the sheep and cattle-browsed grasses and perennial forbs, and partly because of the reduction of regular fires (both by active suppression and by reduction of grassland fuel) which killed shrub seedlings (Moore 1969; Harrington 1979; Harrington et al. 1984). However, the underlying causes of woody weed encroachment elsewhere in Australia are not well understood.

Goats eat many of these invasive native scrub, and domestic goats have been used as an alternative to fire or chemicals to control at least the more palatable species among native weeds. For example, a stocking rate of one goat per hectare for three years killed 90% of the hopbush (Dodonaea viscosa) in an 800 hectare site near Cobar (Torpy et al. 1992). Goats are also used to control such introduced weeds as blackberries and briar (Allan et al. 1993) and prickly acacia.


It would be necessary to manage goats at densities higher than they would naturally attain to make them effective against weeds, and very effective fencing and intensive stock management would be required. Animal welfare issues would likely arise as would groundcover and associated soil degradation issues.

Recommendation 12Develop a much better understanding of the interaction of goats and their impact on invasive native scrub (and vice versa). Researchers should conduct contemporary co-grazing trials in thickened areas to examine various and emerging co-grazing systems (Dorper, etc.) and their impact on invasive native scrub.

Impact on native fauna5.1.5. The native fauna of Australia has been profoundly affected by the introduction of exotic biota (Wilson et al. 1992). Introduced animals have effected these changes by altering habitat, by direct competition for resources, by predation, or by varying combinations of these. In many cases where an ecosystem or individual species has declined, it is often difficult to determine which is the proximal ecological cause (i.e. predation or competition) and, thus, which culprit species (goats, sheep, rabbits, cattle, etc. in the case of competition) should dictate management responses.

Feral goats are known to affect native fauna primarily by direct competition for resources such as food, water and shelter, and by contributing to changes in ecosystems. Feral goats eat many of the same plants as native herbivores, and although goats are rarely the dominant introduced herbivore, this competition must affect some native populations, particularly those depending on goat-favoured species of plants.

Feral goats can also reduce the amount of water available to native animals by aggressively excluding some species and by causing the water levels in rock holes to be lowered so as to exclude other animals or cause them to fall in, drown, and pollute the supply. Goat dung can be deposited around waterholes and springs to a depth of several centimetres. Dung, together with the bodies of goats that fall into the water, perish and decompose, are likely to eutrophicate the water and to have a major effect on freshwater biota. These effects have not been studied.

Recommendation 13Investigate the impacts of goats on the biota of natural waterways such a waterholes and mound springs.

Goats may also compete with native animals for shelter, particularly in rock caves. Goats eat some invertebrates, such as gall-forming and scale insects, but whether this is deliberate or incidental is unknown.

Recommendation 14Investigate the impact of goats on invertebrates.

None of these potential impacts on native fauna are quantified, and the effect at population levels is unknown, and often subtle or misleading. For example, (Dawson and Ellis 1979) and (Sheppard 1990) presumed that unmanaged goats adversely affect yellow-footed rock-wallabies (Petrogale xanthopus) but did not provide any quantitative evidence. Feral goats have been implicated in the decline of brush-tailed rock-wallabies in South Australia, but again quantitative evidence was not provided (Short and Milkovits 1990)

Lim et al. (1992) claimed that rock wallaby numbers recovered after the 1983 drought in Gap Range (New South Wales) where goats had been culled, but concurrently failed to recover at the nearby Coturaundee Range, where goats were not culled and therefore increased to very high densities. Again, however, there was no quantitative evidence to back this claim up.

It is suggested that when it comes to the impact of unmanaged goats on native fauna, indirect impacts may be more critical than direct impacts, i.e. unmanaged goats impact on native animals because of their effects on native vegetation (in particular) and soil. Further research is required in this area and should take on board positive indirect benefits to native fauna, such as termites and decomposers that feed on goat dung.

Recommendation 15Undertake a detailed examination of the direct and indirect impacts of goats on native fauna (both positive and negative).


Contribution of goats to total grazing pressure5.2. If cattle, sheep, kangaroo and other herbivore numbers alone exceed the sustainable carrying capacity of a country type, then the express management of goats will not improve landscape condition in the long term. Viewing all herbivores in the context of total grazing pressure (TGP) is a fundamental concept that must underpin any response to the goat problem in the region or, for that matter, landscape condition, ground cover and other flow-on resource health and degradation issues.

The proportion of TGP that can be attributed to unmanaged goats can be assessed either by estimating the proportion of net annual above-ground productivity (NAAP) of the vegetation they eat, or by estimating their proportion of total large-herbivore carrying capacity.

It is important to note that, regardless of which method is used, the time and context of any estimate is very important (e.g. wet, moderate or dry season).

Parkes et al. (1996a) provide an estimate of the proportional contribution of unmanaged goats to total NAAP based on the following assumptions:

The density of goats is taken as two per square kilometre and five per square kilometre (an estimate of densities in •more preferred habitats).The average annual dry matter intake for a goat of 33 kilograms is 365 kilograms (Devendra and Burns 1983).•The NAAP is for areas with 240 millimetres of annual rainfall (see Parkes • et al. 1996a) for further underlying assumptions).

They conclude that unmanaged goats at densities of two per square kilometre and five per square kilometre annually consume 0.73 and 1.83 tonnes of dry matter per square kilometre respectively, or 0.37% and 0.93% of the total NAAP respectively. To put this in perspective, average densities of rabbits annually consume 10 tonnes per square kilometre (Newsome 1993).

According to (Bomford and Hart 2002), rangelands with 240 millimetres of rainfall can, on average, support at least 20 goat-sized herbivores per square kilometre. Therefore, at the two average densities modelled by Parkes et al. (1996a) above, unmanaged goats would consume between 10% and 25% of the food eaten by the suite of large herbivores present.

One shortcoming of using this method to determine goat contribution to grazing pressure is that available palatable plants can vary enormously in line with seasonal conditions. Such variations cannot be easily accounted for in estimations.

In some places, goats can reach higher densities. In the Olary Hills and Flinders Ranges of South Australia 27 and 40 goats per square kilometre respectively have been recorded (Best 1992, Henzell 1983). In these cases, they are the dominant large herbivore and their impact on preferred food plants is severe.

A study in south-west Queensland by Thompson et al. (2002) assessed how the harvesting of goats impacted on their contribution to TGP, on soil and pasture conditions and on the economics of goat management. It focused on examining the impact of harvesting under two types of management regimes (opportunistic harvesting and sustained control) across four study sites. The population impact was not consistent for the study sites under the same regime, with 62% and 84% reductions in numbers in the two northerly sites (one of each regime) while numbers in the two southern sites (also one of each regime) essentially remained the same.

The contribution of goats to grazing pressure ranged from 3–30%; kangaroos contributed 16–36%; and livestock contributed 37–72%. Harvest rates of feral goats calculated for each of their sites ranged from 17–41%, and it was concluded that there was no consistent relationship between population changes and the harvest rates. Importantly it was noted that seasonal conditions had greater influence on pasture and soil conditions than did changes in feral goat populations.

Recommendation 16Investigate historical data on goat population densities and harvest off-takes to determine the effectiveness of commercial harvesting to control goats in the region.

The contribution results obtained by Thompson et al. (2002) were found to be consistent with data from Western Australia where feral goats represent 20% of the TGP (Pickles 1992), and with results in a north-western New South Wales


study by Landsberg and Stol (1996), who reported that goats represented 17–80% of TGP over three paddocks during an 18-month period, with a mean of approximately 40%.

One aspect of goats and grazing management requiring careful understanding is the difference between TGP and estimates of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is an estimate of what livestock could be carried for the long-term, given the rainfall, soil fertility and woody plant composition of an area, while TGP is based on a safe level of utilisation. For example, during periods of high pasture production, a higher TGP is attained (grazing at a safe level of utilisation will enable more stock to be carried) than indicated by the safe carrying capacity. Thus, care must be taken when using these concepts as they are not directly comparable.

Recommendation 17Goats and grazing management should always be viewed in the context of TGP, based on the long-term carrying capacity of individual country types.

Accurate estimates of goat populations are very difficult for landholders, without aerial surveys or other data sets available to them. Researchers have used dung counts as an indirect method of estimating populations (Landsberg and Stol 1996) but this technique has not been developed for landholders. In the absence of data on goat numbers, an estimate of TGP for a property is practically impossible for the landholder.

Recommendation 18Develop an easy-to-use method, possibly using dung counts, for landholders (or groupings of landholders) to be able to accurately estimate goat numbers.

Recommendation 19Develop more effective pasture-based indicators of grazing pressure to allow landholders to judge when and by how much it should be adjusted.

Figure 7: A very good demonstration of the results of different management strategies employed on two properties. On the right side of the fence is an area where typical harvesting occurs; on the left is a tightly controlled TGP fenced area. This photo was

taken in a year with good winter rains, but when autumn, spring and summer rains were low.

Another concept that may be worth introducing to the vocabulary of the region is co-grazing. The grazing of two or more species of livestock together, or separately, on the same land in a single growing season is known as common use, dual use, or multi-species grazing (Coffey 2001). Multi- or mixed-species grazing systems may be based on sequential grazing (i.e. grazing by one species following another at separate times) or the simultaneous co-grazing of two or more species of livestock and (or) game animals. These practices have greatest effect on the efficiency of forage use on land containing a variety of vegetation types (Walker 1994.).


The idea of intentionally grazing goats and sheep in the rangelands of Western NSW (or for that matter, farming goats) may be controversial given the historical focus on feral goats and their management. In undertaking this literature review, the authors thought it valid to investigate the benefits and constraints of co-grazing as it represents one possible land management option that could be employed in order to exert greater management control over feral goats in the rangelands.

The degree of dietary overlap in consumption of specific plant species and parts is a major factor influencing benefits of multi-species grazing. A related attribute of co-grazing, though relatively more important with the presence of cattle, is consumption by sheep and (or) goats of plants toxic to, or avoided by, another ruminant species (Walker et al. 1994).

Ruminant species also vary in their preference, tolerance, and (or) ability to graze lands with different topography and terrain. Seasonal nutrient and labour requirements differ among ruminant species as well, although patterns of management of sheep and goats in the Cobar district observed by the authors are similar. This is the logical application or transfer by landholders of their sheep management skills to goats.

Product diversification can be an attribute of multi- versus mono-species grazing. Greater biological efficiency, defined as product from a system on a continuing basis, for multi-species grazing enhances total income and enterprise sustainability.

Given the aforementioned, potentially favourable outcomes of co-grazing, it lacks widespread (but growing) employment in the rangelands, suggesting there must be disadvantages or other constraining considerations. One is simply a lack of knowledge or appreciation of the attributes. The greater management skills and knowledge necessary for two or three species versus one can be an important factor, as can additional production inputs, such as increased fencing requirements, for raising small ruminants.

Furthermore, there may be reductions in production efficiencies. For example, when there are two or more co-grazed species, the numbers would be relatively limited in comparison to mono-grazed species; this would result in a higher unit cost for health management supplies purchased in smaller lots. However, these issues seem of much lesser significance for co-grazing of sheep and goats than of cattle co-grazing with one or two species of small ruminants.

Aside from production benefits, there are other practical considerations, namely vegetation management, for assessing and achieving greatest benefits from co-grazing of small ruminants. The use of two or more co-grazing species may yield additional benefits if managed correctly.

Recommendation 20Investigate production constraints to co-grazing of goats and sheep (such as Dorpers).

Economic impacts5.3. The economic impacts of goats can be classified in various ways, such as positive and negative, direct and indirect costs, and forgone economic opportunities. Over the years, a number of studies have attempted to quantify the economic impact of unmanaged goats, and a further number have examined the economics of feral goat harvesting at the landholder level (control cost versus sale of goats).

One recent report (McLeod 2004) attempted to estimate the economic impact of the country’s most important terrestrial vertebrate pests, including goats. This was a conservative study that did not take into account all economic impacts. It estimated that unmanaged goats cost Australia $7.7 million per year, including sheep and cattle production loss ($3.5 million), control costs ($4.23 million) and research costs.

In the late 1980s, Henzell (1989) estimated that unmanaged goats were causing $25 million per year net loss. This was due to declines in stock production, contingency losses due to exotic disease threat, and land management agency operations to control unmanaged goats. Supplementary costs in relation to environmental impacts caused by the goats, especially where commercial harvesting voids effective control (e.g. releasing underweight goats), were noted but not costed.

Much of the work examining the economic impacts has been in relation to justifying or comparing the feasibility of control techniques. The focus is on establishing an economic argument that control can be balanced by the sale value of goats. For example Forsyth and Parkes (2004) estimated an annual off-take of approximately 1 million goats, and


assuming a conservative carcass value of between $15 and $20, suggested the control of feral goats can represent a net benefit to the Australian economy after the deduction of costs.

The cost of control versus the cost of inaction is also frequently touted. Table 5 provides a summary of select studies that included an examination of the costs of various control techniques.

Table 5: Summary of the expenditure for various goat control techniques

Technique Cost Reference

Overall control costs for Australia $2 million (per year) McLeod 2004

Estimated total labour cost for Australia $0.7 million to $0.9 million

(1998–2003)Reddiex 2004

Aerial shooting (Coolah Tops National Parks, 1997–2002)

$13.83 to $30.47 (per goat)

Fleming et al. 2002

Mustering (Coolah Tops National Parks, 1997–2002)

$20.34 to $21.05 (per goat)

Fleming et al. 2002

Self-mustering trap yards $1000 to $5000

(per yard)Bellchambers 2004 (quoting figures from previous studies)

Internal TGP fencing (retrofit) From $700 (per km) M Chuk 2010, pers. comm., 5 October

Boundary TGP fencing (retrofit) $2,500 (per km) M Chuk 2010, pers. comm., 5 October

New TGP fencing $4,000 (per km) M Chuk 2010, pers. comm., 5 October

Ground shooting $774

(per goat)Edwards et al. 1994

Judas goat $70

(per goat)Henzell 1992 (theoretical calculation)

Management strategies including both aerial shooting and mustering are thought to achieve the highest population reductions for the minimum net cost (Parkes et al. 1996a). In general, the cost of aerial shooting rises exponentially with decreasing animal density (Parkes 1993; Maas and Choquenot 1995). However, it is a very effective technique and can be used in all terrains, except where there is heavy vegetation. Mustering does not reduce goat populations to the same extent as aerial shooting. However, this is offset by the lower cost, with cost-effectiveness depending on the price of goats at the time.

Trapping, like mustering, may make a profit due to the sale of captured animals, but can only be used during dry times and where access to water can be controlled. The Judas goat technique (see Section 6.1.6) is expensive and is only appropriate where the protection of native species and ecological communities is achievable only with extremely low goat densities. Ground-based shooting is not appropriate as the primary means of control in a pastoral setting because of high labour costs, but may be a useful supplement as a commercial wild harvest for game meat or hides. In densely vegetated areas, such as Tasmania’s forests, it is the only available technique.

What is not covered in these economic aspects is a thorough examination of the true costs and benefits to regional economies. Most notable is the potential role of overgrazing (including the contribution from goats) in accelerating a region or property’s decline into drought, lengthening the time a region or property is in drought and what this means in terms of drought support paid to landholders during these periods. Other economic aspects receiving little attention include: the potential biosecurity risk posed by goats; their use as weed controllers, recreational (hunting) opportunities; lost production and reduced opportunities to pursue emerging grazing opportunities (such as Dorpers) via pasture competition; and the value of a ready source of easy income (especially in terms of cash flow) for graziers and part-time harvesters.

Recommendation 21Examine the economic value and costs of goats to the regional economies of Western NSW. This is probably best advanced as part of an Economic Development Plan for the Rangeland Meat Goat Industry.


Social impacts5.4. Few studies have examined the direct social impacts of unmanaged goats but, rather, have concentrated on economic and, to a lesser degree, environmental impacts. A recent study (Fitzgerald 2009) examined the social impacts of Australia’s invasive species, focusing on the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales as a case study. It concluded that much more work is required in this area, and suggested a sociological survey of the general public at national, rural and urban levels as a means to build up a data set of social attitudes and perceptions of impacts.

Recommendation 22Undertake a stakeholder analysis exercise as part of the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy, including the development of a Stakeholder Management Plan.

Direct social impacts of unmanaged goats relate to the underlying attitudes and perceptions of stakeholders. Examples include:

Animal welfare advocates favour control techniques that minimise stress and suffering of goats (Parkes et al. 1996a). They support methods that are considered ‘humane’ with low suffering and no risk of injuring other species. They are against commercial exploitation of unmanaged goats as this involves stress during capture and transport to abattoir. This means there is potential for conflict such as that experienced in the poultry and pork sectors between animal welfare advocates and producers. If this were to occur, the resulting psychological distress would be a direct social impact upon landholders.

Trauma from vehicle accidents caused by goats for both locals and visitors to the region would be another direct social impact.

Some people view goats as an expression of the modified Australian landscape, to be used as a resource. After all, goats were introduced as early as sheep in Australia.

Others see goats as a pest, especially conservation advocates and those producers who wish to maximise sheep production and support game hunting (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Goats have a cultural status in the Australian outback (Beutel and Schutt 2002).

Aboriginal people value unmanaged goats as the ‘newcomers’ to their part of the landscape rather than seeing them as invasive species (Rose 1995). Aboriginal people are supportive of exploiting unmanaged goats to promote economic opportunity in rural areas, but their populations should be managed in a way that protects sacred places and rock holes (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Recommendation 23Survey landholders’ attitudes towards goats, goat management and their levels of participation in harvesting as part of the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy. This survey needs to include absentee landholders.


Approaches to feral goat management6.

Key points

Broadly speaking there are two drivers underlying goat management – conservation and commercial objectives. •Both use numerous control techniques and result in varying management goals.

Control techniques are well-known, tried and tested, and apart from MVT (Machine Vision Technology), there has •been no great leap forward over the past 25 years, despite a lot of trialling, etc.

TGP fencing is a suitable control technique for the eastern parts of the region. It is economically feasible to roll •out, and overcomes trapping water in higher rainfall areas.

The feral goat has not been eradicated from any extensive mainland environment in Australia, despite decades of effort. Complete eradication at the national or regional scale is well beyond the capacity of available resources, because the species is well-established across such vast areas.

However, feral goats can and should be managed, and perhaps even eradicated from some local, ‘sensitive’ areas, using cost-effective and currently available methods and technology. Eradication from offshore islands (or from mainland areas that have similarly isolated populations) is feasible, and has been achieved on over 120 islands worldwide, many in Australia and New Zealand (see Campbell and Donlan 2005).

Techniques to manage feral goats in the rangelands broadly fall into two categories, depending on the fate of the goats. Mustering and trapping are used in cases where goats are intended for commercial slaughter, whereas shooting and other lethal techniques are used when carcasses are not commercially used. Crossover between the traditional ‘pest vs resource’ approaches should be encouraged as efficiencies in management may be achievable, including a greater coverage of management at the landscape scale.

A review of techniques for suppressing goat populations by Parkes et al. (1996a) concluded that the main deficiencies with control programs are associated with decisions on whether to attempt local eradication or strategic management. We suggest that spatial and temporal inconsistencies in strategic management are the biggest deficiency with approaches to goat control to date.

Convention suggests success will be achieved where integrated approaches target local or regional circumstances, and use the most appropriate suite of options to reduce and control population numbers and their impacts. However, despite decades of control effort, no detailed work has been undertaken that examines an appropriate mix of strategic and tactical responses for managing goats. A complicating factor has been the ‘resource vs pest’ status assigned by interested parties.

A very important part of implementing a response to the issue of unmanaged goats is working with landholders to address their economic interests in harvesting goats. A review of the 1999 goat threat abatement plan (Hart 2005) proposed that conservation and commercial objectives be aligned. This is because commercial harvesting of goats is the main form of control outside reserve areas and, from a conservation perspective, goats should be controlled in the context of grazing management in general. While this thinking is seen as a large step forward, we suggest it is not that the objectives need to be aligned, but that a common intention be used to underpin commercial harvesting and environmental impact reduction. That common intention should be to gain control over unmanaged populations.

Most goats live on land managed by pastoralists who will be paramount in any goat management success. At present, management responses by pastoralists vary. Some landholders are neglecting their land and unwittingly allowing goat numbers to rise. Others are deliberately encouraging goats to multiply. In the Cobar district, absentee landholders are a particular issue. Here, they make good profits from their land by driving up from Sydney every six months to harvest goats but, when absent, allow the impact of goats to go unchecked. This adds to the problems faced by neighbours. At the other end of the spectrum are pastoralists who are installing TGP fencing, controlling watering points and setting traps in place to capture goats and manage their numbers. How these pastoralists perceive the risks and costs or benefits of managing goats will be the crucial factor in determining the fate of unmanaged goat populations, both in the short and long term.


6.1. Control techniquesThere are numerous methods available to reduce the impact of unmanaged goats. Those that are regularly used or have been used in Australia are summarised, and their advantages and disadvantages noted, in Table 7.

Most of the techniques discussed require foot access. However, goats are renowned for their ability to climb steep mountain-sides and cliffs. Hence, there is no effective method for killing goats in rugged country or dense forest that is inaccessible by foot and/or too well forested for aerial control (Parkes 1990; Forsyth and Parkes 1995).

Mustering and yarding6.4.1. Although mustering goats for slaughter or live sale is labour-intensive and limited to relatively flat terrain (Harrington 1982), it is most efficient at high goat densities. The advantage of this technique in the context of harvesting is that the cost of control is either partly or fully offset by the sale of the goats.

However, mustering may not always be as effective as it has been perceived. In Western Australia, Pickles (unpublished, cited in Parkes et al. 1996a) found that only 30–40% of populations are taken in an average muster. This figure can be much higher, particularly when goat densities are high and the efficiency of mustering is greatest.

In one operation in the northern Flinders Ranges, 1600 goats were caught out of an estimated 2000 present in the 50 square kilometre area, representing an 80% clearance (Henzell and McCloud 1984). However, mustering and trapping for commercial harvest becomes uneconomic once populations are reduced to densities below about one goat per square kilometre (Henzell and McCloud 1984).

Many landholders muster opportunistically when they notice a large group of goats on their land. The advantage of this approach is that it makes mustering easier because the goats are aggregated into a single large mob, thereby reducing the area that must be searched and the number of mobs that must be brought together. If this meets the management objectives, the approach is satisfactory. But goats do not always aggregate into large mobs and, so, opportunistic mustering can lead to goat numbers building to undesirably high levels before mobs are large enough to trigger a muster. The opportunistic approach needs to be combined with monitoring (either of resource degradation or goat numbers) so control takes place at suitable times.

Ground mustering of goats on Woody Island in Queensland probably reduced the goat population by about 80% (Allen 1991). Two general methods are used to herd goats into yards. Helicopters or light aircraft are often used to flush goats out of rough country or move animals closer to the yards. Thereafter, or as a sole method in accessible country, goats are herded into yards by people on horses or on motorbikes, usually with the aid of one or more dogs.

It is not hard to see why mustering is often the preferred option. However, unless goats are removed to a density well below their maximum sustainable yield, they will continue to be a problem in relation to their environmental impact.

Fencing and yarding6.4.2. Fences are expensive ($18,000 per kilometre for a goat fence on Arapawa Island, New Zealand (Cash and Able 1994; Lim et al. 1992)) and are eventually breached by goats. Therefore, it is important that managers have a clear strategic and tactical purpose before using fences to manage goats. Fences are commonly used:

to limit the dispersal of goats or to break up large land areas into manageable blocks during eradication campaigns, •e.g. on Maui and Hawaii Islands (Baker and Reeser 1972)

to limit the dispersal of goats and concentrate their numbers to aid mustering•

in combination with ‘jump downs’ to draw in and subsequently trap and control goat movement across a property •(through a series of paddocks), to aid mustering and/or finishing of goats

to exclude goats from some water points to concentrate them at others where they can be trapped•

to constrain captured goats (i.e. yards).•

There are several recommended designs for conventional and electric fences to constrain domestic goats for normal Australian conditions (Lund and May 1990; Markwick et al. 1992).

In a recent audit of 40 randomly selected incentives projects funded between 2005 and 2009 by the Western CMA, 15 involved TGP fencing to control goat movement. These fences mostly used some form of hinge-joint netting, with a few


projects using conventional or Weston electrical fences (M Chuk 2010, pers. comm., 5 October).

The cost of TGP fencing ranged from as little as $700 per kilometre for 70 cm hinge-joint netting installed on existing internal fencing, to $2500 per kilometre for rebuilt boundary fencing, incorporating 90 cm hinge-joint, to $4000 per kilometre for completely new hinge-joint fencing (2007 prices). The most expensive fence encountered was an eight wire Weston electric fence at around $5300 per kilometre. This fence was also capable of stopping all but the most determined kangaroos.

Some of the lower hinge joint reinforced internal fences were seen as being capable of managing goats, but not the movement of wildlife (kangaroos and emus). Some landholders were happy to have wildlife pass over fences whilst others were looking to also exclude wildlife through raising fences and installing one or two top barbwires.

The most effective TGP fences observed by Chuk were new fences with 90 cm high hinge joint (eight wires, 30 cm wide panels) supported by steel posts at 10 m spacing, with separate top wire(s) and three wires supporting the hinge joint. The best fences were erected on well-cleared lines, which had been land planed to ensure a constant spacing between the bottom of the hinge joint and the ground. Where extra strength was required to prevent animals passing under the fence, one or two electric wires were installed using Weston droppers offset from the fence.

The majority of TGP fencing inspected in the audit was on the Cobar Peneplain, which is well suited to this type of fencing, due to the modest property size (5,000 to 10,000 ha), the significant goat population and the strong emphasis on goat management in the area. The soil in this area is mostly stable and relatively flat, which lends itself to the construction of durable TGP fences.

A number of properties visited in the audit were exclusively goats or goats in combination with meat sheep. These properties had invested in substantial supporting infrastructure such as trap yards around water and TGP subdivisional fencing, which allowed pasture spelling and rotational grazing. One property visited had even constructed a substantial goat drafting shed for holding goats, and night-time drafting.

Managing goats through the installation of TGP fencing was seen as critical to property viability through:

ability to manage goat impacts on pastures and vegetation•

ability to use goats selectively to control invasive native scrub•

not losing goats off property (or excluding neighbours’ goats)•

controlling mating (superior Boer goats don’t compete well with wild billies)•

ability to build up consistent lines of goats and finish them for market.•

All the landholders surveyed in the audit felt that installation of TGP fencing had allowed them to manage pasture in a more sustainable manner.

There were some general issues with TGP fencing identified in the audit. These were:

the relatively high cost of fencing, particularly if new fences were constructed•

the question of how much fencing would have been installed had the incentive funding not been made available •through the Western CMA

how TGP fencing may affect landscape scale movement of native animals such as kangaroos, wallabies and emus.•

Other identified issues on the fence design and construction were:

inadequacies in fence line preparation, particularly on some land types•

considerable variation in opinion on how tight the fences should be tensioned (some showed signs of having been •over tensioned, which may lead to premature end assembly failure, particularly on pre-existing fences)

the need to identify areas where floodgates or props should be installed to prevent flood damage•

control of scrub through regular spraying and grading of fence lines.•

Recommendation 24Review Western CMA TGP fencing guidelines to clarify design and construction issues identified in the recent Western CMA Incentives Program audit. Include issues such as fence design, correct tensioning and the positioning of floodgates.


Recommendation 25Review the Western CMA Incentives Program to encourage the undertaking of group-based TGP fencing projects to allow for strategic placement of fence lines across the landscape. This could be done through offering greater amounts or proportion of funding to group-based participants undertaking landscape-scale strategic TGP fencing.

It was clear from the audit that TGP fencing is a powerful tool to manage the impacts of goats and is the key to maintaining a sustainable goat enterprise. There appears to be a need to examine the issues of where TGP fences are installed to get the best management of goats while considering the whole of landscape movement of wildlife. Further research may be needed to look at landscape-scale impacts on native animals if TGP fencing is to achieve more widespread adoption.

Recommendation 26Develop a landscape-based feral goat management pilot project. This could involve one or more rangecare/landcare groups to implement a ‘neighbourhood’ goat management plan.

Recommendation 27Include a study into the likely affects on wildlife of the widespread use of TGP fencing in the region in the landscape-based feral goat management pilot project.

Figure 8: An example of TGP fencing

When it comes to fencing off access to water, McRae (1984) notes that a few goats are apparently so faithful to one water supply that they will die rather than move and search for another. This behaviour has obvious animal welfare considerations.

Trapping at water6.4.3. Because goats in semi-arid and arid areas must drink during dry times, they can be trapped when they concentrate around a water source. Traps at water are goat-proof fences surrounding the water point with a variety of one-way entrances. Spear gates, swinging one-way gates, or jump-down ramps have all been used (Henzell and McCloud 1984; Diver 1991; Sullivan 1992).

Jump-down traps - The entrance consists of an earth ramp sloping up to approximately one metre high that allows the goats to access the trap by jumping down into it. A heavy gauge wire or baulking bar is placed approximately 30 cm above the top of the ramp to prevent the goats from jumping back out of the trap. The width of the ramp depends on the number of goats in the area. A gate placed next to the ramp is left open for the goats to use when the trap is not activated. This familiarises the goats with the trap and its surrounds.


Spear gate traps - The entrance consists of a v-shaped, four-bar gate with flexible spears. Goats have to squeeze through the spears to enter the yard to drink and usually have to be trained to go through the gates by gradually closing the spears to get them used to squeezing through. Big billies and other goats with large horns may have difficulty squeezing through this type of gate.

Swinging one-way gate traps - These gates allow the goats to push through one way into the yard but do not move in the opposite direction when they try to push to get out.

The reliance of goats on water, particularly that provided by people during dry periods, is a critical weak-point in goats’ normal resilience to management. The integration of control tactics (including trapping, fencing and mustering) to exploit this weakness allows strategic options such as eradication to be considered over time.

Traps must be cleared regularly to avoid starvation and stress, and operated only during the daytime to avoid catching macropods.

Some concerns have been expressed about the use of traps at water points and the potential animal welfare issues and deleterious impacts on non-target species. Some of these concerns can be addressed by providing larger traps to minimise stress and allow for more effective handling of stock.

Non-target species that are trapped must be drafted out as quickly as possible to avoid undue stress. Trap yards at natural water holes pose special problems as they may severely restrict access by native species. One option is to design fences that selectively exclude certain species from water points. Knowledge of other species that may, locally, be at risk from inappropriately designed traps should be used to identify the most suitable trap design and usage.

Machine vision technology (MVT) is also an option for reducing trapping rates of non-target species, and increasing the effectiveness of trapping at water in the future. Electronic perception technology is a form of MVT that gives a semiconductor or system the ability not only to record the image of an object, but to be able to distinguish the object from the background or from other objects in a scene (see Finch et al. 2006).

The technology uses an approach similar to radar, where waves of emitted energy are bounced off an object. Animals are identified before they enter a trap, allowing the potential for segregating goats and other feral animals from native species and stock. This could be achieved through a computer controlled swing gate directing animals into different caged zones, or by denying access into the traps to undesirable species.

Figure 9: Basic MVT design for a watering point enclosure suitable for (A) excluding undesirable animals, and (B) suitable for use as a trap.

One such system installed in August 2008 is being trialled on Tommo Station near Mitchell in southern Queensland.


Figure 10: Video and processed images of (A) a goat and (B) a sheep using MVT

Recommendation 28Undertake a trial of Machine Vision Technology traps in western parts of the region to control goats accessing artificial watering points.

Shooting from the ground6.4.4. Ground-based shooting is not commonly used as a control strategy for unmanaged goats in the pastoral areas of Australia. It is labour intensive and its efficiency is dependent on climatic conditions (Dodd and Hartwig 1992). This control method is mainly used in forested areas and, in such areas, ground hunters may also use trained dogs to indicate, track, or bail goats (Parkes 1990).

Volunteer shooters have been successfully used to conduct ground shooting as part of the control methods in Bounceback 2000 in South Australia. The success with volunteer shooters in this case was achieved by having well-defined objectives and an effective system of coordinating shooter activities to maximise the level of control achieved. Ground-based shooting can be used to target individual goats if necessary. Skilled operators are required to ensure that this is done humanely.


Ground shooting alone has eradicated goats from many islands (Parkes 1990) and has reduced populations by over 90% in other areas (Parkes 1993). In one example from the Gammon Ranges National Park (South Australia), 78 volunteer hunters killed over 3400 goats in about 1000 square kilometres of rugged country at a cost (excluding labour) of about $10 per square kilometre (Dodd and Hartwig 1992). The proportion of the population killed was not known, but the operation’s effectiveness was reduced halfway through when rain allowed the goats to avoid water points. These costs are minimal compared with those to sustain low goat densities in New Zealand forests where annual costs of ground hunting (including all overhead costs) of up to $400 per square kilometre are usual (Parkes 1993).

Shooting from the air6.4.5. Aerial shooting has been successfully used to control goats (Mahood 1985; Naismith 1992; Maas and Choquenot 1995; Pople et al. 1996). In pastoral areas, this method is mostly used to control inaccessible populations, manage low density populations or remove survivors from other control campaigns (Parkes et al. 1996a). It may also be the only technique to achieve broad scale reductions when goat prices are low.

Aerial shooting generally involves using helicopters as a shooting platform, with light aircraft occasionally acting as ‘spotters’. This method is costly, but allows difficult terrain to be covered quickly and gives culling rates far in excess of other control methods (Lim et al. 1992). Costs vary with the initial and target density of goats, habitat, weather, and the type of helicopter used (Table 6), but tend to rise exponentially with decreasing goat density (Parkes 1993; Maas and Choquenot 1995).

Table 6: Costs and effort of some aerial goat control operations.

Operation Area (km2)

Helicopter type

Hunting effort (hrs)

Number of goats killed Cost Cost/km2 %

reduction Reference

Western Australia

175,600 Bell 47 2,354 152,367 $1,090,482 $6.2070%

(approx)Parkes et al. 1996a

Gammon Ranges

1,000Robinson

22B28 2800 $1, 060 $11.06 <45%

Naismith 1992

Arkaroola (Flinders Ranges)

130Bell Jet Ranger

20 900 $31,260 $240.50 >99%Henzell 1981

Judas goats6.4.6. The use of a radio or global positioning system (GPS) collared individual to locate animals with which they associate has been developed as a control technique for strongly social species such as goats (Taylor and Katahira 1988; Henzell 1987; Allen 1991; Williams et al. 1992). The collared ‘Judas’ goat joins up with, and is used to locate, groups that are difficult to find by other methods. This means that the technique is usually used for low-density populations or for survivors of other control campaigns that have become particularly wary.

Generally, it is best to use local goats as Judas animals because they are familiar with the area and are already part of the social structure of the target goat group, resulting in less stress and minimising the risk that the Judas animals will disperse out of the target area. It is often useful, particularly in forested or scrubby habitats, to mark the Judas goats in some way (e.g. with coloured dye on white animals), to minimise the risk of the Judas animal being shot by mistake.

The method has been used to eradicate local populations of unmanaged goats in Australia in small areas of the Adelaide Hills in South Australia (Henzell 1987; Williams et al. 1992) and on Woody Island in Queensland (Allen 1991) among other areas. It has not been used to eradicate goats in flatter semi-arid pastoral areas, but has been used to control them in similar terrain in Hattah-Kulkyne National Park in Victoria (Henzell 1987).

The use of helicopters to locate and shoot animals associating with the Judas goat has not been trialled in Australia, but is used with success in high altitude grassland/scrub habitats in New Zealand (Hondelink 1992).


Poisoning6.4.7. The only poison that has been trialled for unmanaged goat control in Australia is 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate). The main risk with this technique is consumption of baits by non-target species. Three baiting techniques have been reported: pelletised grain bait (Forsyth and Parkes 1995), foliage baiting (Parkes 1991), and poisoning of a water supply (Norbury 1993).

This last technique to kill goats by adding 1080 to water troughs was trialled in Western Australia (Norbury 1993). This trial showed that goats could be killed with minimal non-target risks by designing the troughs to exclude birds and providing them with alternative water, by excluding domestic stock, and by poisoning between 8.00 am and noon to reduce the risk to macropods. Toxin concentrations of seven milligrams per litre of water were sufficient to kill most goats – thirsty goats can drink up to 20% of their body weight of water (Yousef 1988), and the LD505 for goats is 0.5 milligrams of 1080 per kilogram (McIlroy 1983).

Other poisons have been used in this way, but these are illegal. The risk to macropods could be further reduced by the use of a selective watering device, such as the Finlayson trough (Norbury 1993), although they are ineffective unless installed on all the waters in the area.

Poisoning ungulates with 1080 appears to be relatively humane when compared with other poisons and with the effects of 1080 in canids (Batcheler 1978). The main problems that would need to be solved before 1080 could be used more widely against goats in Australia are associated with non-target risks.

Some techniques to control goats based on poisons have been successful in New Zealand, but others have failed. Smearing 1080 in a gel or grease onto leaves of palatable plants killed over 90% of goats in one trial (Parkes 1991), but pelletised grain baits that were palatable to penned goats were eaten by only 25% of goats in a trial where the baits were spread from a helicopter (Forsyth and Parkes 1995).

Sedation followed by removal or shooting6.4.8. Goats that are free-fed on bait material such as grain might be able to be immobilised with bait to which a sedative such as valium has been added. Veterinary supervision of the use of the sedative might be required. The technique has not yet been used routinely against goats, but is used illegally to poach deer. Most animals tolerate considerable overdoses and can be left to recover, but might need protection from the elements and predators.

Trials in South Australia have been promising, but further development is needed (R. Henzell, unpublished cited in Parkes et al. 1996a). If effective, this technique could avert many of the animal welfare concerns associated with poisoning or trapping at water.

Habitat manipulation6.4.9. The ultimate limiting factor for all animals in semi-arid areas is water. Manipulation of goats’ access to water is a potential method to manage their numbers – and that of other herbivores. Complete closure of artificial watering points, for example in conservation areas, might be an option particularly after most unwanted herbivores had been removed by some more humane control technique. Closing access to some water points may be tactically justified in order to force goats to other water where they can be more easily mustered, trapped or shot, such as occurs with brumbies (Dobbie et al. 1993).

Biological control6.4.10. In principle, biological control of pests can result in continuing benefit following the single management action of releasing the control agent. Acceptable examples of biological control for mammals are rare, and no natural pathogen to manage goats in Australia is available and acceptable. Most exotic diseases and parasites of goats that might be candidates as control agents would not be welcome in Australia because of their likely effects on domestic animals.

Control of goats using a pathogen may be theoretically possible, but currently none is known to be virulent, humane, specific to goats (i.e. as a small ruminant) and not transferable to other species.

5 Abbreviation for Lethal Dose, 50% - median lethal dose


Biological control agents that act on fertility rather than mortality are favoured in principle by animal welfare agencies. Genetic engineering could be used to induce a species’ immune system to attack its own reproductive cells, preventing fertilisation (Tyndale-Biscoe 1994). No such biocontrol agent has yet been developed for any pest species, however attempts are being made to develop this technique for use against rabbits and foxes. If successful, it could then be considered for goats. Although domestic goats would also be affected, it might be possible to make the technique species-specific, so other domestic stock would not be affected. The cost of immunising domestic goats would therefore be much less than for most exotic diseases whose introduction could be contemplated. However, the technology to do this does not currently exist, and the research to develop it would have many problems, including ethical concerns. Another disadvantage is that animals are likely to develop resistance to the pathogen and such resistance will eventually spread through the species.

One effective biological control against goats is already present in Australia: the dingo and wild dog. One goat population on an offshore island was successfully controlled by releasing dingoes onto the island (Allen and Lee 1995). It is unlikely that dingoes would be acceptable as a biological control in pastoral areas where most goats occur, as predation by dingoes is not a target-specific control measure and other livestock would be at risk.

Other techniques6.4.11. Various other control techniques have been tried or suggested, such as kill snaring (Parkes 1984), which is not recommended on animal welfare grounds.

The use of contraceptive control through hormone treatment is not considered a viable option for managing goat populations as there are no practical methods of ensuring effective treatment of unrestrained animals (Jago 1999). Immunocontraception has the potential to provide a target-specific form of fertility control that can be used on wild goat populations. If the immunocontraception can be made to work, it may provide a cheap, easily disseminated method for reducing fertility and populations of some pest species on a continental scale.

Broad scale control using an immunecontraceptive vaccine, if one were developed, would depend on developing a suitable delivery mechanism for the vaccine and obtaining appropriate approvals to release the vaccine into the wild. The development and initial employment of such a vaccine would initially be very expensive. However, the long-term cost of a successful immunocontraception program would be low due to the low on-going costs. Currently, no immunocontraceptive research for goats is being undertaken.

A bounty scheme to control feral goats may be ineffective in the sparsely populated rangelands. Bounties on goats’ ears have been paid in Western Australia to induce people mustering goats to kill unmarketable animals instead of releasing them. Over 120,000 bounties were paid between 1977 and 1985, but the value of the scheme was doubted, so it was discontinued in 1985 (Parkes et al. 1996a).

Table 7: Summary of the effectiveness of feral goat control techniques (adapted from Parkes et al. 1996a)

Advantages DisadvantagesMustering Sale of goats can offset costs of control

Can be done by landownersHas several welfare problemsOnly economic and efficient at high goat densities

Fencing Can limit dispersalUseful during control campaigns to compartmentalise larger areasFences can be used to exclude goats from some water supplies and force them to drink at sites where they can be trapped

Fences will always be breached eventually, thus they are tactical, not strategic, weaponsEffective fences are very expensive

Sedation Relatively inexpensiveHas few welfare implications

May require veterinary assistance or supervision

Poisoning Can place all target animals at risk Many non-target problems in AustraliaMany methods and toxins are illegal or not registered for this use

Judas goats Makes location of sparsely distributed or wary goats easierIdeal if eradication is the aim

Requires expensive equipment and skilled operators

Shooting from the air

Can locate goats in inaccessible terrainCan cover large areas

Requires skilled pilots and shootersCan be expensive

Shooting from the ground

Proven methodCan target particular goats

Requires some skills to ensure humane kills

Trapping at water

Sale of goats can offset costs of building and maintaining trapsCan be done by landownersThe traps can also be used to muster sheep

Has several welfare problemsCan only be used during dry timesIneffective where extensive bodies of permanent water are present


6.2 Monitoring/trackingIntensive monitoring programs will be critical for successful control activities. Here, it is suggested two types of monitoring should be part of any goat management program: the monitoring of the contribution of the impact of goats on the environment, and the monitoring of abundance of goats across the landscape (see Recommendation 3).

Aerial survey is the most common method used to estimate the abundance of goats in large areas, although analogous ground-based strip-survey methods are useful in accessible, open, semi-arid areas (Parkes et al. 1996a). In general, helicopter detection is used in situations where there is a low level of ground cover and a high density of goats (i.e. an established goat population). Helicopter surveying has proven useful in surveying remote parts of Sarigan Island (Kessler 2002).

Dung counts and mark-recapture methods are more suited to small or densely vegetated areas where goats are less observable (Parkes et al. 1996a) (see Recommendation 17).

GPS monitoring using collars should also be investigated as it can provide an instantaneous and remotely based handle on herd movement across a landscape if enough receivers are deployed in the field.

Recommendation 29Trial the use of GPS collars/tags in the region. This will determine the feasibility of using this technology to inform landholders, via a public tracking website, of goat movements around the region.

6.3 Integrating control tacticsThe most efficient and effective control method will often depend on the density of pests and the particular circumstances operating at each place. Therefore, it is often prudent to be flexible about which method is best, and be prepared to change tactics, or the mix of tactics, as a goat management operation proceeds. It is also necessary to apply these techniques in the context of the strategic aims of the operation.

For example, in pastoral areas the order in which control techniques are applied might vary depending on whether there are conditions of drought or plenty, and the application of some methods might depend on whether the aim is local eradication, strategic management or commercial management.

6.4 Welfare considerationsSometimes, certain values must be compromised in order to preserve other values such as the conservation of the environment. In many cases, reduced grazing by goats (due to culling) will have a positive impact on native vegetation and, in turn, associated native fauna.

The justification of control in many areas is impact. Whether one agrees with this argument or not, there is one thing most people will agree on: if an animal is to be killed it should be done humanely and, if possible, expertly.

The most humane, effective and appropriate technique for control of goats should be chosen to minimise suffering to the goats, and minimise harm and suffering to non-target animals, people and the broader environment (Sharp and Saunders 2004). Sufficient resources and training must be available to implement humane techniques and regular monitoring and improvement of codes of practice6 should occur.

Exclusion fencing is regarded as a humane and a non-lethal control method, but fencing may restrict access to water by non-target species, alter behaviour patterns, result in entanglement and electrocution, and can stop animals from escaping from a bushfire. Judas goats may suffer pain and injury during capture, handling, restraint and repeated isolation from other goats.

6 The NSW Department of Primary Industries (formerly the NSW Department of Agriculture) was contracted by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage to undertake a Natural Heritage Trust project to develop Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures for the humane capture, handling and destruction of feral animals. The NSW Department of Primary Industries has undertaken public consultation, including with other State and Territory agencies, in preparing the Codes of Practice and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). While the Codes and Procedures have not been adopted nationally by all jurisdictions, some of these organisations are adopting them wholly or in part for their own use. The Codes of Practice & SOP are available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/humane-control. html


To minimise harm and suffering, skilled shooters must carry out shooting, and wounded animals must be killed quickly and humanely. Traps must be inspected at least once daily, and goats and non-target animals provided with water, food and shelter, especially during extreme weather. If possible, traps employed should be designed such that non-target species can free themselves (see MVT, Section 6.1.3). Transport and handling should be minimised with all control techniques (Sharp and Saunders 2004).

Techniques that are considered unsuitable on animal welfare grounds are denial of water as a means of killing animals, and trapping without prompt destruction or removal (Parkes et al. 1996a).

The main welfare concerns about commercial exploitation of goats centre on conditions of their capture, transport, and slaughter. Humane aspects of control and harvesting should be addressed holistically.

To ensure the most humane methods are used, animal welfare agencies should be consulted and involved in the development of plans for controlling unmanaged goats.

Recommendation 30Ensure that animal welfare considerations are a prominent feature of any goat management control and harvest effort, and that they are funded accordingly.


The feral goat harvest industry7.

Key points

The national herd consists of an estimated 2.5–5.5 million goats of which 90% are feral or unmanaged.•

The harvest industry is well-established and increasingly becoming mainstream, as a permanent part of •rangelands grazing enterprises or as standalone operations.

There are 9,552 goat-producing properties Australia-wide; 4,033 are in New South Wales. Despite this, the •industry is still considered by most as an ‘emerging’ or ‘niche’ pursuit.

The sustainable development of the industry would be an opportunity to better manage goats across the •regional landscape, if inherent factors affecting the sustainability of the industry can be overcome, and more vigour and effort is directed towards engaging the industry as a whole.

History and structure7.1. The harvesting of goat populations for meat began in 1953 and has continued sporadically ever since (Ramsay 1994). Today, goats are harvested for three main uses:

domestication to establish farmed breeding stock•

as meat for either export or local consumption (now all processed through abattoirs but, in the past, with some shot •in the field and exported as game meat)

export as live animals for slaughter at destination.•

The abattoir-slaughtered component of the industry is by far the largest component. Abattoir-slaughtered feral goats are subject to the same meat regulations as farm-raised animals.

Pastoral zone fences are typically not goat-proof and, consequently, goats can move freely from property to property. In general, ownership is created when goats are captured by the landholder or by a person who has been granted rightful access by the landholder.

According to Meat & Livestock Australia (B Brice 2010, pers comm., 2 September), Australia’s goat production profile comprises:

9,552 goat producing properties Australia-wide, of which 4,033 occur in New South Wales (Figure 12);•

a production split of 25%/65% between Western Australia and the eastern states•

a national herd of an estimated 2.5–5.5 million goats of which 90% are feral (Figure 13).•


Figure 12: Goat producing properties in Australia (from Meat & Livestock Australia (B Brice 2010, pers comm., 2 September) with overlay diagram showing journey of goats from paddock to plate.

Recommendation 31Engage Meat & Livestock Australia to develop and provide a profile of the region’s goat harvest industry.

Figure 13: Approximate contribution of goat breeds and production systems to the national herd (from Meat & Livestock Australia, B Brice 2010, pers comm., 2 September)

Non-landholder Harvester

Harvester Producer

Depots

Harvester

Abattoirs (often acting as own marketer)

Abattoirs (often acting as own marketer)

Export Market

Meat

Air Freight Sea Freight

Wholesaler

Retailer

Live Exporter

Air Freight Sea Freight

Overseas Depot

Abattoir Farm

300,00055,000 30,000 15,000

2,600,000

RangelandBoer and Boer crossAngoraDairyCashmere


Harvested goats are often transported up to 1000 km for slaughter. Harvesting occurs throughout the year but there is a tendency for harvesting to be greater in summer. This seasonality appears to be a result of when goats are easiest to muster rather than being market driven.

The price paid to landholders and the costs of capture appear to be the main factors determining how many feral goats are commercially harvested. However, harvesting at a property level is also influenced by many other factors, including the purpose of the farming enterprise, the profitability of their main enterprise, range condition and de-stocking needs, occasional peer pressure and governmental regulations, and the need to control weeds.

Farm-gate prices vary considerably depending on location and size of shipment and, of course, supply and demand on the open market, along with currency exchange rates. In early 2010, prices for live weight in the Cobar area ranged from $0.80/kg to $1.10/kg (McMurtrie et al. 2010). Again, in the Cobar district, it has been estimated that goat numbers harvested per property range from 1,500 to 4,000 each harvest season, with the difference in numbers relating to whether the property lies within a goat-preferred habitat (McMurtrie et al. 2010).

One interesting feature of the harvest industry is the common use of goat depots. These are essentially holding areas where goats are brought together or accumulated to consolidate significant numbers of goats for marketing purposes before they are transported for slaughter, export or distribution to other businesses. Goat depots offer a local market for more opportunistic harvesters, and are usually a side enterprise for landholders or, in the case of goat-only properties, they may form the mainstay of the operation. Typically, goats will only remain at the depot for a short time (four to ten days); however, this depends on the market and the capacity of the depot.

Goat industry stakeholders include landholders who control access to feral goats, existing goat producers and harvesters, processors, exporters, overseas importers and marketers, goat product consumers, and land management and conservation agencies.

It is generally thought that both industry stakeholders and land management agency stakeholders see each other as enemies. The harvest industry is seen by land management agency personnel as being, at best, a necessary short-term evil and, at worst, a threat to the prospect of ever being able to eradicate goats in areas such as National Parks under their management jurisdiction. The industry tends to perceive the land management agencies as being ignorant of the realities of goat control.

Domestication as breeding stock7.2. Domesticated feral goats formed the basis of the Australian domestic goat industry. The process of domestication began with an emphasis on fibre through cross breeding pure-bred angora bucks with selected feral does and with the progeny for five generations to result in a near pure angora (Ramsay 1994).

The emphasis on fibre has more recently been replaced with a desire to improve the genetics of the meat-goat herd. South African Boer goat genetics first imported into Australia in the late 1980s were released from quarantine in the mid 1990s. Since this time, the popularity of the Boer goat has gone from strength to strength with numbers increasing rapidly. The Boer is the only goat breed specifically bred for meat.

Boer goat bucks are being used to crossbreed with Australian bush does, producing a much faster growing animal, which reaches slaughter weight in significantly faster time and has a higher dressing out percentage. The Boer goat has also performed extremely well in trials and carcase competitions proving to be the superior meat-goat breed (Boer Goat Breeders Association of Australia 2010)

There are indications that Boer goats may be easier to contain, being less likely to go over or under fences. Good sheep fences may suffice (Department of Primary Industries 2002).


Re-domestication as weed controllers7.3. Goats can be effective at controlling exotic weeds such as blackberry (Rubus fruticosa), St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa), and native invasive native scrub such as hopbush (Dodonaea spp.), Acacia spp. and Eremophila spp., where pasture rather than woody vegetation is the aim (Wilson et al. 1975; Pierce et al. 2001; Parkes et al. 1996a; and references therein).

Generally, goats have to be run at high enough densities (which are likely to vary with the effects of rainfall) to effectively suppress the weeds and their regeneration, but not so high that they damage pasture and compete with sheep. Attempts to identify optimal densities of goats (and sheep) have proved difficult (e.g. Markwick et al. 1992).

Captured and exported alive7.4. Goats were first exported live, to the Middle East, in 1982–83. Most live-export goats are destined for slaughter, although a few are used for breeding (Ramsay 1994).

Since 1990, more than 1.3 million live goats have been exported, with the annual number varying between 13,776 in 1995 and 136,125 in 2002. In 2009, 97,621 live goats were exported at a value of US$9,015,027 (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Australian live goat exports: 1990–2009 (LiveCorp 2010)


Figure 15: Australian live goat prices: 1990–2009 (United Nations 2010)

Goats have been exported by both sea and air, generally up to 500 at a time. Following a period where most goats were shipped by sea in the 1990s, in 2009 almost all were freighted by air (Figure 13).

Figure 16: Australian live goat exports by mode of travel 2000–2009 (LiveCorp, 2010)


Destinations have also changed (Figure 17). The United Arab Emirates was the primary importer of live goats until the early 1990s. Saudi Arabia was an important destination until August 2003, after which time all live animal exports were suspended to that country as a consequence of problems with sheep exports. Malaysia has been a growing market in recent years. Some of these changes are due to competition from other exporting countries such as India, Pakistan, Syria, and Turkey.

The characteristics of goats desired for slaughter by the various importing countries vary, but broadly speaking:

Saudi Arabia demanded male goats (no females permitted) of all breeds (but with a preference for Boer or Boer cross) •that weighed 25 kg

Other Middle East countries accept male and female goats of all breeds and 25 kg, but prefer young goats•

Malaysia accepts male and female goats of all breeds, but they must be 40 kg.•

The live goat market in the Middle East fluctuates as Australian exporters compete with those from India and Iran. Prices in this market are influenced by the quantity of stock in the market, not only of goats but also of Australian sheep (Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1994).

Figure 17: Destinations of live goats exported from Australia, 1990-2009 (LiveCorp 2010)

Western Australia dominated the live export market from 1990 until 2005, although many goats were exported from Victoria in 1990–91, and from South Australia in 1992 and from 2006 onwards (Figure 18). In recent years, New South Wales’ share has grown considerably, surpassing Western Australia since 2007. Few goats continue to be exported live from Queensland.


Figure 18: Australian live goat exports by state of origin 1990-2009 (LiveCorp, 2010)

Slaughtered at abattoirs in Australia and exported7.5.

Number of goats7.5.1. Australia began exporting goat meat in 1952 (Ramsay 1994), and is now the world’s largest supplier of chilled and frozen goat meat (Ramsay 1994; Meat & Livestock Australia 2006). Australia exported 67,829 tonnes of goat meat in 2009 valued at US$24,819,120 (United Nations 2010) (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Australian goat meat exports 1990–2009 (United Nations, 2010)


Figure 20: Australian goat meat (tonnes shipped weight) exports by state of origin 1997–2009 (Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2010)

Since 1990, Queensland has consistently been Australia’s largest state of origin for exported goat meat, closely followed by Victoria (Figure 20); the US is our largest export market (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Australian goat meat value exports by country of destination 1996–2009 (Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, 2010)


Seasonality7.5.2. Two general patterns of seasonal supply are apparent in Australia. In Western Australia, most goats are supplied to the abattoirs from late October to late March, when natural water sources in the rangelands are most scarce and the animals are easiest to trap at artificial watering points. For example, the Geraldton Meat Exports (GME) abattoir is ‘inundated’ with feral goats during November–February, but during the other months there is virtually no supply. GME would prefer a constant supply of goats, up to their daily capacity of 2000, throughout the year to optimise their processing plant and retain skilled staff.

In contrast, the supply in the eastern states is more evenly spread throughout the year due to different rainfall and seasonal patterns. In the east of both New South Wales and Queensland, goats are harvested entirely by mustering. Trapping at water points is not common in winter because temperatures are not high enough to force goats to water; they obtain enough moisture from forage.

Mustering is possible at any time of the year and, consequently, farmers can respond more easily to changes in abattoir prices for goats. In the drier western rangelands of New South Wales and Queensland, many goats are also harvested by trapping at water points during the dry season – about September to January in New South Wales; June to October in Queensland.

Number and location of abattoirs7.5.3. The number and location of abattoirs and exporters processing goats for the domestic and export markets has varied over time.

Elliot and Woodford (1995) reported that in 1991 and 1992 respectively there were 25 and 33 export licensed abattoirs that processed goat meat, and 51 and 68 licensed exporters of that meat.

In 1996, the Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation (cited in Agri-Focus Pty Ltd 1996) reported that in the 1995–96 fiscal year, the number of export-licensed works processing goat meat was 26, with the major processing state being New South Wales (54% of slaughter numbers in 1992–93) followed by Western Australia (19%), Queensland (13%), South Australia (13%), and Victoria (1%).

Forsyth and Parkes (2004) reported that there were 20 export abattoirs licensed to process goat meat in January 2004, noting only 14 of those 20 abattoirs actually process goat meat: six in Western Australia, four in Queensland, three in New South Wales, and one in Victoria.

An investigation undertaken by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) (2007) aimed to describe the spread and location of all Australian processing facilities for new animal product industries including bison, buffalo, camel, crocodile, ducks and geese, emus, goats, horses, kangaroos, ostriches, rabbits, sheep, squabs, turkey and yabby. This exercise resulted in a directory for the major processing plants, with a brief description of their facilities, management practices and compliance with various standards. Figure 22 has been produced based on the 31 abattoirs reported to process goats from this report. It is not known whether the listed processing facilities serve the domestic, export, or both markets.

The main abattoirs are at Geraldton, Western Australia (Geraldton Meat Exporters Pty Ltd) and Charleville, Queensland (Western Exporters Pty Ltd), both of which have, over recent years, experienced erratic operations for a variety of reasons (supply, market access restrictions), though not always in relation to their goat processing activities.


Figure 22: Locations of the goat abattoirs in Australia (using data from RIRDC 2007).

Destination of exported goat meat7.5.4. Culture and custom of goat meat export destinations influence the goat meat harvest industry with different countries having different demands (Parkes et al. 1996a). There are no religious barriers to the use of goat meat and it is often used on social occasions such as weddings and religious festivals. Accordingly, some of the markets tend to exhibit seasonality.

Caribbean countries prefer frozen and boneless meat from carcasses weighing >16 kg. In Taiwan, there is little demand for carcasses during February–August; demand increases during the festival season and premiums are paid for lean skin-on carcasses weighing 14–20 kg. Middle East buyers preferred 8–12 kg carcasses, with halal slaughter essential.

Taiwan prefers feral goat meat, and is the highest-priced Asian market due to the demand for skin-on product that is widely consumed in a traditional soup dish eaten during the winter months. Goats for this market must be lean and young (around 14–16 kg) (Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1994).

Malaysia is also an important market for goat meat. Here, there is a preference for the skin-off product, but that market can shift to sheep meat when the price relativities change (Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1994). The Singapore market is similarly price sensitive (Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1994).

Economics of supply7.5.5. It appears that most decisions to harvest goats (either by doing it themselves or by contracting the work) are made at a property level by the landholder. Thus, the attitudes of the individual landholder towards goats are a key variable in the industry. Some landholders see goats as competitors with livestock and, essentially, subsidise their control (or even profit) from sale of the animals. Others see the goats as a resource, directly as a product for meat, or indirectly as a means of controlling weeds with a harvest of excess animals as a by-product. Some appear never to harvest goats when it would clearly be profitable (i.e. they do not see goats as part of their economic enterprise).

Goat AbattoirsSource: Observation

Source: RIRDC (2007)

It would be important to know what motivates landholders to commercially harvest goats if governments wanted to influence that behaviour. One way to explore these attitudes would be by surveying a large sample of individuals. To our knowledge, this has not been done. A second way to explore motivations is to quantify the relationships between measurable outcomes of landholders’ behaviour (e.g. the numbers of goats harvested) with variables that might influence them.

Harvesting theory suggests that profit will be the primary determinant of whether or not to harvest (e.g Choquenot et al. 1998). As with any enterprise, goat harvesting depends on expenses (cost of harvesting the goats) being far enough below income (price paid for the goats) to make it worthwhile. Parkes et al. (1996b) showed that 89% of the variation in the annual commercial harvest of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in New Zealand was explained by price per kilogram offered by the game buyers.

Nevertheless, factors other than price may affect the commercial harvest of goats. First, the efficiency of capture will vary with the methods used, and profitability will increase as the number of goats that can be harvested per effort unit increases (Choquenot et al. 1998). Second, managers will be more likely to harvest goats when they view competition with their livestock (domestic sheep) as unacceptable, and/or when rangeland condition is perceived to be poor. Third, landholders may wish to not harvest goats when they think there are net benefits in retaining them as weed controllers.

Economics of abattoirs7.5.6. Ramsay (1994) claimed that most abattoirs processing goats are primarily concerned with slaughtering sheep, with goats purchased ‘opportunistically’. This appears to still be the case, with the majority of goats processed at the two abattoirs at Geraldton in Western Australia and Charleville in Queensland.

Many factors affect abattoir profitability, including animal supply and quality, labour quality and cost, variable skin returns, perishable product, marketing and financing (Holst 1990). Holst (1990) argued that the viability of the export industry depends on ‘exchange rates, cost control and innovation’.

Feral goats are transported large distances to abattoirs or exporters in multi-decked truck-trailer units, and distance from the market may be a constraint on the profitability of selling feral goats (Holst, 1990). The abattoir loses money on any goat <10 kg (dressed) as these animals have no commercial value and must be disposed of. The current day cost to process a goat was unable to be determined.

The cost of slaughtering feral goats remains higher than for sheep (Holst 1990). One problem is contamination for both skin-on and skin-off goat meat by goat hair residue (Elliott 1994). Although the problem has largely been overcome for skin-off goat meat, the commercial processors interviewed by Elliott (1994) used pig processing chains to de-hair feral goats and produce a skin-on carcass. However, due to the differences in body shape between pigs and goats, this process resulted in up to a 3% damaged carcasses rejection rate.

Other goat products7.5.7.

Slaughtered and sold on the domestic marketThere is little information on the size, value and characteristics of the domestic market for goat meat. Export abattoirs can sell goat meat on the domestic market, making it impossible to ascertain the number of goats slaughtered for domestic consumption (Ramsay 1994).

The premium domestic market is for kid meat (capretto) of 6–12 kg dressed weight (Toseland 1993). Holst (1990) suggested that <10% of goat meat enters the domestic market and, given the rise in the quantities of goat meat exported since then, it is likely that the fraction consumed domestically is now even smaller.

According to Meat & Livestock Australia (B Brice 2010, pers comm., 2 September), the domestic market constitutes 8% of Australia’s goat meat production, and focuses on serving largely specialised ethnic butchers (approx. 90%), restaurants/food service (ethnic & mainstream), supermarkets, farmers’ markets and a backyard trade.

FibreFeral goats formed the basis of the domestic goat industry in Australia (Ramsay 1994), but the numbers now captured and used in breeding programs to develop herds for fibre production are unknown. Restall (1992) reported that 72%


of a herd of 125 feral does in Western NSW had commercially recoverable fibre, and Johnson (1985) claimed that 30% of goats in parts of Western Australia could produce commercial quantities of cashmere. Pure-bred angora bucks are crossed with feral does, and the progeny are crossed until the fifth generation, which is regarded as a pure angora (Ramsay 1994).

There is no information on the size and value of the fibre trade within Australia, but figures are available for exports of skins and leather (see Figure 23).

Skins and leatherGoat skins and leather are a by-product of the goat meat industry, so the supply of skins and leather depends on the number of animals slaughtered within Australia. Ramsay (1994) noted that where abattoirs slaughter goats infrequently, most skins are dumped. No information on the size and value of the skin and leather trade within Australia could be sourced.

Figure 23: Australian Goat Skin Exports 1990–2009 (United Nations 2010)

Game meatFeral goats have been slaughtered (usually shot) in the field by hunters supplying the game meat industry, but this industry has been defunct since about 1999. According to (Ramsay 1994), all such meat was exported, primarily to Caribbean countries. During the 1989 to 1992 calendar years, 26,628, 38,995, 38,354 and 39,731 goats were processed as ‘wild game’, respectively (Ramsay 1994).

The method of harvesting and processing goats for game meat was similar to that for feral pigs. Goats were shot using a rifle of at least .222 calibre. Ramsay (1994) claimed that most wild goats were shot by professional kangaroo or feral pig shooters who either shot goats opportunistically, or switched to them when prices were high. Shooters were paid according to the weight of the carcasses. The carcasses were collected from chillers and transported to a game-meat processing establishment.


Major factors affecting the sustainability of the industry7.6.

Supply issues7.6.1. A regular supply of marketable goats is a key constraint to an abattoirs’ profitability (Toseland 1993; Elliott 1994). In 1993, the disposal of non-marketable goats cost processors between $3 and $5 per head, while the cost of freight was borne by the supplier.

Commercial processors indicated that there is a greater demand for abattoir slaughtered goat products than the current supply of feral goats can produce. Toseland (1993) also suggested that sourcing sufficient product on a continuous basis was the highest priority for the industry. Part of the inability to source sufficient feral goats was blamed on harvesting and transport difficulties during wet weather (especially during the winter months in Western NSW).

Most commercial processors wanted feral goats to be incorporated into the ‘overall business management’ of landholders, for example, by constructing goat fencing and controlling stocking rates. It was argued that such actions would improve the quantity and quality of feral goats, reduce the environmental impacts of feral goats, diversify the business in the semi-arid zones, and provide rural employment (Toseland 1993).

Market issues7.6.2. Two markets, Asia and the North Americas, drive the current demand for feral goats (both live exports and goat meat). It is thought most of the Western Australian goats are exported to the Middle East and South-East Asia, with the majority of the US and Canadian markets supplied by Queensland and New South Wales (see also Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1994).

In their study, Coffey MPW Pty Ltd (1994) suggested the Western Australian landholders, transporters, abattoirs, processors and exporters would resent regulations that reduce the profitability of their enterprises (i.e. the regulations would not improve the price they receive for their product in their markets) and that, in contrast, the eastern Australian market would probably welcome regulations that improve their ability to access other markets.

The importance of other export markets has varied greatly over the period for which statistics are available. The high standards of livestock handling, transporting, slaughtering, and processing standards in Australia are a competitive advantage in the United States market. Demand for feral goats by the United States will depend on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond the control of regulators (e.g. exchange rates, availability of competing meats in the United States, competition from other producers).

Government and landholder attitudes7.6.3. A review of the feral goat industry commissioned by the Bureau of Rural Sciences (Agri-Focus Pty Ltd 1996) noted that the official view of feral goats as pests was often reflected by farmer attitudes, and that these perceptions adversely affected the sustainability of any industry based on harvesting goats. The review also noted the lack of linkage between opportunistic harvesters (driven by price of goats) and landholders’ requirements to manage both their domestic and feral/wild herbivores to ensure sustainable land use.

Although these issues do not appear to constrain the harvest industry (in its current form), the authors suggest that if a general push were to emerge to move the harvest industry beyond an opportunistic approach and engage in the use of more permanent husbandry techniques, government and landholder attitudes toward feral goats would be a defining constraint.


Key conclusions and implications8.

Key points

The biggest failure to date concerning the management of goats and their impacts on the landscape and •biodiversity has been a misplaced focus on the tactical responses to the problem.

Goats will remain a component of the landscape and must be managed. Energy should focus on managing the •impacts of goats where they affect biodiversity (species, ecological communities), and landscape condition.

Generally, isolated and/or ‘as needed’ control efforts (e.g. exclusion fencing, National Parks control programs) can •be undertaken in relation to biodiversity, but for landscape condition, widespread sustained control is required.

Managing the impacts of goats on landscape condition cannot be done in isolation from domestic livestock and •other herbivores.

There is a vast body of knowledge on the management of feral goats, especially in relation to control techniques and programs. Substantial knowledge also exists on their biology and ecology. However, there are inconsistencies in the reported distribution and abundance of unmanaged goat populations and information is very limited at the regional scale. In the past, data has been collected often as a side exercise (such as goat number counts in conjunction with kangaroo counts) and was primarily used to underpin specific control campaigns (in space and time).

Interestingly, much of the research knowledge and capacity resides within state agricultural departments and such research has undoubtedly been influenced by state-based policy developments.

Despite debate over the past 10 years concerning the ability of the commercial harvest industry to play some role in managing feral goat populations, there has been little traction gained in this area; the commercial harvest industry is still very much divorced from environment-based moves to manage goats.

The biggest failure to date concerning the management of goats and their impacts on the landscape and biodiversity has been a misplaced focus on the tactical responses to the problem. Coupled with this, management focus and, therefore, activity has been driven by either environmental or harvesting objectives, not both, and all at or near the property scale.

The feral goat harvest industry in the region is seen as an established niche pursuit, comprising traditional opportunistic harvesting, full-time goat operations, and goat depots. Given Australia is the largest goat meat exporter in the world, and with over 4000 properties in New South Wales engaged in goat production (many in the western region), we would argue that goat production should no longer be considered a niche industry but, rather, the basis for a sustainable rangeland meat goat industry. For the industry to take this next step, it needs to mature.

Goats will remain a permanent component of the TGP of the region. Opportunistic harvesting of goats will not result in any meaningful lessening of the impact of goats on landscape health. This may well result in local, short-term reductions and may be suitable for biodiversity protection efforts, but opportunistic harvesting would have to be replicated in time and space to achieve the greater degree and extent of control required.

The failure to date to significantly reduce goat populations (and hence their impacts) has implications for landholders and those, such as government, who provide them with advice, support and resources.

The techniques for control are known. The tools for planning for control and the integration of biodiversity and landscape condition drivers for control are non-existent. A strategy is needed.

Recommendation 32Partner with land management funders (such as Caring for our Country), feral goat harvest industry players (such as NSW Ag, Meat & Livestock Australia, RIRDC, etc.) to deliver funding for the development (and implementation) of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region. This may involve developing an investment case for a strategy.

One possible step forward is to describe and classify the management systems under which goats are managed in the region. Although they could be described in many ways, depending on the purpose of classification, in the context of landscape and biodiversity asset protection, it is perhaps most relevant to use the aim or lack thereof for goat production,


the level of production intensity (e.g. high input) and comparative level of use of goats across a property/enterprise.In basic terms, rangeland goat management systems can simply be described as:

Low-input• – goats are grazing freely without regular supervision or intervention; no animal husbandry practices undertaken; opportunistic harvesting by muster.

Relatively low-input• – goats are grazing freely with regular supervision and intervention; opportunistically harvested; traps may be used as part of this system.

Relatively high-input• – goat grazing is controlled by TGP fencing but they are not subject to any animal husbandry practices.

High-input• – goat grazing is controlled by TGP fencing; goats are given supplements, marked, etc. and are finished before sale; management similar to sheep but without the attention to breeding stock.

However, even these crude classifications do not capture the subtleties of different goat management systems being used in the region.

Recommendation 33Develop a classification system for rangeland goat management systems to aid in the implementation of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the Western NSW Rangelands.

At the same time, and to accompany such a classifications system, a basic goat management system sustainability scorecard should be developed. This scorecard could be used to assist in the strategic planning of goat management in the region (by way of comparison of different systems), and to communicate to landholders the differing impact of these management systems on the region’s biodiversity and landscape.

Recommendation 34Develop a sustainability scorecard as part of a classification framework for goat management systems, so that the biodiversity and landscape impacts of different management systems can be compared and communicated to the community.

And, to take the classification and scorecard ideas further, the use of goat management zones would also improve strategic planning. Goat management zones would be identified geographical areas across the region where the adoption of a particular strategic outcome concerning goat management (based on the classification system together with the scorecard) can be recommended. These management zones could be used by the Western CMA to guide funding and resources. The impact of goats on the landscape and biodiversity would also be criteria.

By identifying these zones, effort and assistance to address goats can be focused in order to improve related, but often confounded, issues such as ground cover.

Recommendation 35Establish geographical goat management zones across the region as part of developing the Feral Goat Management Strategy. This will determine landscape/‘neighbourhood’ management aims and guide control effort and investment in each zone.

The success of the development and implementation of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region is predicated on the successful engagement of a range of stakeholders including industry, conservation, animal welfare organisations, and land management agencies.

Recommendation 36As a precursor to the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy, the Western CMA should host a summit inviting all stakeholders to discuss feral goat management in the region and the development of a strategy.

Moreover, participation in, and acceptance of, the strategy by the landholders of the region is crucial in gaining traction and ‘ownership’ of the goat problem.

Recommendation 37The Western CMA should hold a regional roadshow to engage the community in the development of the Feral Goat Management Strategy.


Such engagement processes could then drive the implementation of more collaborative approaches to managing the impacts of goats (and more broadly TGP) at the landscape scale. The result could be that goats become a sustainable long-term option for land managers in the region, rather than an opportunity driven by seasons, goat migrations and other factors beyond the influence of land managers.

In practice, this could be through planned interventions, which may include the use of strategically placed TGP fencing, water control and trapping across a number of properties and land tenures. Fencing could be positioned in a way that accounts for goat movement across the landscape as well as localised management aims. Investment in such infrastructure is warranted especially where landholders pursue dual use (i.e. management of other livestock). The correct design and use of fencing and trapping is paramount in order to reduce impact on no-target species such as macropods.

For this approach to be successful there would need to be targeted efforts in community liaison to develop the commitment required across all stakeholders. This could be a worthwhile investment by the CMAs given the real possibility that:

more effective, sustained management of goats will result•

investments in infrastructure (TGP fencing) may be more effective (the cost for each square kilometre protected could •be reduced)

with a landscape approach there is a real prospect that landholders currently not involved in goat management will •come into the project

there is the ability to address TGP issues through effective involvement of conservation land managers•

investments in monitoring systems will deliver hard data on project effectiveness.•

It is suggested that a pilot, landscape scale project be trialled in the region where goat density is high, and where there is a mixture of traditional and non-traditional land managers along with national parks. A steering group representing key stakeholders would drive such a project. This group would develop an overall strategy for the project and select areas in the region that would suit trialling this approach. The CMAs would need to apportion appropriate funding for a reasonable period to implement and monitor the success of the project.

In far-western NSW, there may be opportunities to undertake a landscape approach but, given the large size of properties and the associated high cost of TGP fencing required, as well as the lesser density of goats, trapping at water may remain the primary on-ground control technique.

Beyond the landscape scale project, there is an opportunity for the Feral Goat Management Strategy to consider fine-tuning the current incentives program that invests heavily in farm infrastructure (TGP fencing, goat traps and water points).

There is an opportunity to place greater emphasis on group-based projects. Existing landcare/rangecare groups could be used as a conduit to facilitate such group-based projects.

Such groups could take a further step and form the basis of local harvesting co-ops. The Maranoa Kangaroo Harvesting Co-op based around Mitchell in Queensland, is one such model. In the past, groups within the region have included the Rangelands Meat Products Network (thought to now be defunct). Another model outside the region is the North West Goat Producers. Established in 2006 and based around Gunnedah in New South Wales, this group focuses on farmed goats. The group’s charter is to work together to promote farmed meat goats, increase industry awareness, and take advantage of marketing opportunities.

A greater degree of communication and collaboration is needed in the feral goat harvest industry. The Western CMA, by instigating this and four related studies, has put its hand up as a potential leader in managing goats in the region. The direction that the Western CMA pursues with its strategy could lay a very important foundation for shape of the local industry and future management efforts.

A diagrammatic representation of the recommendations put forward in this report is provided in Figure 24. These are simply the authors’ observations of gaps, issues and/or opportunities as a result of conducting the literature review, and its intended purpose to inform the development of a Feral Goat Management Strategy for the region. Although the recommendations can be considered as subsets of others and/or are linked as a pair or more of sequential activities, no prioritisation has been attempted.


Figure 24: Diagrammatic representation of review recommendations.


CMA Studies

Policy Economic TGP Literature

Economic

Agencies Industry

Feral Goat Coordination

Feral Goat Summit

Feral Goat Regional

Workshops

Feral Goat Regional

Workshops

Feral Goat Regional

Workshops

Resources

Feral Goat Management

Strategy

Extension

IndustryRegional harvesting •Industry profile

PlanningGoat management •zones and goat management databaseGoat system •classification frameworkGoat Sustainability •scorecard

Management Incentives

Incentives program•Group based projects•Better collaboration•Best practice•Value for 5•Pilot Landscape •Project

ResearchTGP/Wildlife•Co grazing•Natural waters•Other research•

MERI

Biannual Aerial Goat Survey

Biannual Remote Sensing Ground

Cover Survey

Project Management

Reporting

References9.

Abbot, I. 1978. Seabird Islands No. 59 Mistaken Island, King George Sound, Western Australia. Corella, 2, 32-33.

ABC Rural News. 2008. Goat deaths in the NT [Online]. ABC Rural News. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200805/s2242964.htm [Accessed 18 September 2010].

Agri-Focus Pty Ltd. 1996. The role and long-term potential of commercial use in ‘best practice’ management of feral goat damage. Canberra: Bureau of Resource Sciences.

Aitken, P.F. 1980. Mammals. In: CORBETT, D. (ed.) A Field Guide to the Flinders Ranges. Adelaide: Rigby.

Allan, C., Holst, P. & Campbell, M. 1993. Weed control using goats: a guide to using goats for weed control in pasture. Orange: New South Wales Department of Agriculture Agdex 640.

Allen, L.R. 1991. The eradication of feral goats from an island national park. In: Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 9, 1991. 22-25.

Allen, L.R. & Lee, J.M. 1995. The management of feral goat impact on Townsend Island, progress report to the Department of Defence. Queensland Department of Lands.

Aplin, T.E.H. 1971. Poison plants of Western Australia: the toxic species of Gastrolobium and Oxylobium.

Baker, J.K. & Reeser, D.W. 1972. Goat management problems in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: a history, analysis, and management plan. Hawaii: National Park Natural Resources Report.

Batcheler, C.L. 1978. Compound 1080: its properties, effectiveness, dangers, and use. New Zealand Forest Service.

Batey, R.G., Speed, C.M. & Kobes, C.J. 1986. Prevalence and distribution of caseous lymphadenitis in feral goats. Australian Veterinary Journal, 63, 33-36.

Bayliss, P. & Yeomans, K.M. 1989. Correcting Bias in Aerial Survey Population Estimates of Feral Livestock in Northern Australia Using the Double-Count Technique. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26, 925-933.

Becker, K. & Lohrmann, J. 1992. Feed selection by goats on tropical semi-humid rangeland. Small Ruminant Research, 8, 285-298.

Bellchambers, K. 2004. Improving the Devlopment of Effective and Humane Trapping Systems as a Control Method for Feral Goats in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia.

Best, L.W. 1992. Feral Goat Seminar. In: Best, L.W. (ed.) Total grazing pressure and conservation management. Adelaide: Department of Environment and Planning

Beutel, E.A. & Schutt, F.E. 2002. The indispensible goat: Queensland pioneers and their goats. Rockhampton, Queensland: Central Queensland University Press.

Boer Goat Breeders Association of Australia. 2010. The development of the Boer Goat in Australia [Online]. Available: http://www.australianboergoat.com.au/ [Accessed 23 September 2010].

Bomford, M. & Hart, Q. 2002. Non-indigenous vertebrates in Australia. In: Pimentel, D. (ed.) Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species. London, England: CRC Press.

Burke, G. 1990. Seawater consumption and water economy of feral goats. Biotropica, 22, 416-419.

Campbell, K. & Donlan, C.J. 2005. Feral Goat Eradications on Islands. Conservation Biology, 19, 1362-1374.

Cash, B. & Able, W. 1994. Pest Fences, Department of Conservation, New Zealand.

Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations, London, Wiley and Sons.

Caughley, G. & Grigg, G.C. 1981. Surveys of the distribution and density of kangaroos in the pastoral zone of South Australia, and their bearing on the feasibility of aerial survey in large and remote areas. Wildlife Research, 8, 1-11.

Cheng, A.C., Hanna, J.N., Norton, R., Hills, S.L., Davis, J., Krause, V.L., Dowse, G., Inglis, T.J. & Currie, B.J. 2003. Melioidosis in northern Australia, 2001-02. Communicable Diseases Intelligence, 27, 272-277.


Chevis, R.a.F. 1980. Goats. The post-graduate Committee in Veterinary Science, Proceedings No. 52. Internal parasites of goats and their control. University of Sydney.

Choquenot, D., Caughley, J. & McLeod, S. 1998. Scientific, Economic and Social Issues of Commercial Use of Wild Animals in Australia. Canberra: Bureau of Resource Sciences.

Choy, J.L., Mayo, M., Janmaat, A. & Currie, B.J. 2000. Animal melioidosis in Australia. Acta Tropica, 74, 153-158.

Clarke, W.H.J. 1976. The feral goat herd of Faure Island. Journal of Agriculture Western Australia, 17, 102-106.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1992. The process of domestication. Mammal Review, 22, 79-85.

Coblentz, B.E. 1977. Some range relationships of feral goats on Santa Catalina Island, California. Journal of Range Management, 30, 415-419.

Coblentz, B.E. 1978. The effects of feral goats (Capra hircus) on island ecosystems. Biological Conservation, 13, 279-286.

Coffey, L. 2001. Multispecies grazing. ATTRA Publication #CT147 [Online]. ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. Available: http://ww.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/multispecies.pdf [Accessed 19 September 2010].

Coffey MPW Pty Ltd 1994. WA Rangeland Goat Study. Final Report December 1994. RA3049/1. Nedlands, WA: WA Department of Agriculture.

Cousins, D.V., Francis, B.R., Casey, R. & Mayberry, C. 1993. Mycobacterium bovis infection in a goat. Australian Veterinary Journal, 70, 262-263.

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

Dawson, T. & Ellis, B. 1979. Comparison of the Diets of Yellow-Footed Rock-Wallabies and Sympatric Herbivores in Western New South Wales. Wildlife Research, 6, 245-254.

Dawson, T.J., Denny, M.J.S., Russell, E.M. & Ellis, B. 1975. Water usage and diet preferences of free ranging kangaroos, sheep and feral goats in the Australian arid zone during summer. Journal of Zoology, 177, 1-23.

Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. 2010. Red Meat Export Statistics [Online]. Available: http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/meat-wool-dairy/quota/red-meat/red_meat_export_statistics_2008 [Accessed 18 September 2010].

Department of Primary Industries 2002. Agricultural Notes: Boer Goats. Melbourne: State of Victoria.

Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008a. Background document for the threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats. Canberra: DEWHA.

Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008b. Threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by feral goats. Canberra: DEWHA.

Devendra, C. & Burns, M. 1983. Goat production in the tropics., Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau.

Diver, R. 1991. Trapping system sorts sheep from the goats. The Billytin, 1.

Dobbie, W.K., Berman, D.M. & Braysher, M.L. 1993. Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Horses. In: Sciences, B. O. R. (ed.). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Dodd, G.J. & Hartwig, G.B. 1992. Goat eradication by hunting, an experience worth reporting. In: Best, L.W. (ed.) Feral Goat Seminar: Proceedings. Adelaide: Department of Environment and Planning.

Ducos, P. 1989. The walking larder: patterns of domestication, pastoralism and predation. In: Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.) Defining domestication: a clarification. London, UK: Unwin Hyman.

Dunbar, R. 1984. Scapegoat for a thousand deserts. New Scientist, 15, 31-33.

Dunson, W.A. 1974. Some aspects of salt and water balance of feral goats from arid islands. American Journal of Physiology, 226, 662-669.

Edwards, G., Clancy, T., Lee, J. & McDonnell, J. 1994. Feral animal control in the rangelands, final report to the Australia Nature Conservation Agency. Canberra.


Elliott, T. 1994. Commercial processor perspectives of the Australian feral goat meat industry. In: Page, M.J. & Beutel, T.S. (eds.) Ecological Research and Management in the Mulgalands. Gatton College: University of Queensland.

Elliott, T.K. & Woodford, K. 1995. Ecology, commerce and feral goats. In: Grigg, G., Hale, P. & Lunney, D. (eds.) Conservation through sustainable use of wildlife. Brisbane: Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland.

Estes, R.D. 1976. The significance of breeding synchrony in the wildebeest. East African Wildlife Journal, 14, 135-152.

Evans, J.V. 1980. The angora-mohair industry in Australia. Part I. An historical perspective. Goats. The post-graduate Committee in Veterinary Science, Proceedings No. 52.: University of Sydney.

Fairfax Digital. 2009. Health scare force new goat security [Online]. Available: http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/cattle/health-scare-force-new-goat-security/1426871.aspx?src=rss [Accessed 19 September 2010].

Fensham, R.J. & Fairfax, R.J. 2008. Water-remoteness for grazing relief in Australian arid-lands. Biological Conservation, 141, 1447-1460.

Ferguson, C. 2005. Deterministic Model of Microbial Sources, Fate and Transport: A Quantitative Tool for Pathogen Catchment Budgeting. PhD Thesis, University of NSW.

Fernandez, H., Hughes, S., Vigne, J., Helmer, D., Hodgins, G., Miquel, C., Hanni, C., Luikart, G. & Taberlet, P. 2006. Divergent mtDNA lineages of goats in an Early Neolithic site, far from the initial domestication areas. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition, 2006. 209.

Finch, N.A., Murray, P.J., Dunn, M.T. & Billingsley, J. 2006. Control of Watering point Access using Machine Vision Classification of Animals Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society, 42, 16-19.

Fitzgerald, G.a.W. 2009. Assessing the social impact of invasive animals in Australia. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.

Fleming, P. 2004. Relationships between feral goats (Capra hircus) and domestic sheep (Ovis aries) with reference to exotic disease transmission. PhD, University of Canberra.

Fleming, P., Tracey, J., Jones, G., England, K., Leeson, M. & Martin, M. 2002. The costs of methods for reducing feral goat abundance at a high density site, Orange, NSW Agriculture.

Forsyth, D. & Parkes, J. 2004. Maximising The Conservation Benefits of the Commercial Goat Industry in Australia. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victorian Government.

Forsyth, D.M. & Parkes, J.P. 1995. Suitability of Aerially Sown Artificial Baits as a Technique for Poisoning Feral Goats. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 19, 73-76.

French, M.H. 1970. Observations on the Goat. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Freudenberger, D. & Barber, J. 1999. Movement Patterns of Feral Goats in a Semi-Arid Woodland in Eastern Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 21, 71-81.

Gall, C. 1981. Goats in agriculture: distribution, importance and development. In: GALL, C. (ed.) Goat Production. London: Academic Press.

Grigg, G., Beard, L., Pople, T., Alexander, P. & Cairns, S. 1992. The 1992 survey of kangaroos in the pastoral zone of South Australia. Department of Zoology, University of Queensland.

Harrington, G. 1979. The effects of feral goats and sheep on the shrub populations in a semi-arid woodland. The Rangeland Journal, 1, 334-345.

Harrington, G. 1986. Herbivore diet in a semi-arid Eucalyptus populnea woodland. 2. Feral goats. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture., 26, 423-9.

Harrington, G.N. 1982. The feral goat. Goats for Meat and Fibre in Australia. CSIRO:Melbourne.

Harrington, G.N., Mills, D.M.D., Pressland, A.J. & Hodgkinson, K.C. 1984. Semi-arid woodlands. In: Harrington, G.N., Wilson, A.D. & Young, M.D. (eds.) Management of Australia’s Rangelands. East Melbourne: CSIRO.

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. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Sciences.


Henderson, W. 2009. Pathogens in vertebrate pests in Australia. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.

Henzell, R. 1992. Summary of goat biology and environmental impacts - implications for eradication. In: Best, L.W. (ed.) Feral goat seminar proceedings. Adelaide: South Australian Department of Environment and Planning.

Henzell, R. 1993. The ecology of feral goats. In: Freudenberger, D., ed. National Workshop on Feral Goat Management: Planning for Action, 1993 Dubbo, New South Wales. 269: Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, 9-16.

Henzell, R. & McCloud, P. 1984. Estimation of the Density of Feral Goats in Part of Arid South Australia by means of the Petersen Estimate. Australian Wildlife Research, 11, 93-102.

Henzell, R.P. 1981. Technical notes on the shooting of feral goats on Arkaroola from 1-5 June, 1981. Adelaide: Animal and Plant Control Commission.

Henzell, R.P. 1983. Biology and control of feral goats. In: Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference, 1983. 270, 142-145.

Henzell, R.P. 1987. Methods of controlling feral goats in special situations. Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 8, 264-267.

Henzell, R.P. 1989. Proclaimed animal research in South Australia - cost-benefits, future directions and related issues. Report to Animal and Plant Control Commission. South Australia.

Henzell, R.P. 1991. Rabbits, feral goats, mulga, and rangeland stability. In: Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 9, 1991. 272, 18-21.

Hermes, N., Hicks, J., Hinchey, M. & Reville, B. 1989. Australian and New Zealand Islands: Nature Conservation Values and Management. In: Burbidge, A. (ed.) Nature conservation management of tropical and sub-tropical Island Territories. Department of Conservation and Land Management Western Australia.

Holst, P.J. 1990. Goat meat production. Postgraduate Committee in Veterinary Science Proceedings 134 - Goat Health and Production. University of Sydney.

Holt, C. & Pickles, G. 1996. Home Range Responses of Feral Goats. The Rangeland Journal, 18, 144-149.

Hondelink, P. 1992. Mount Aspiring National Park Judas goat operation. Otago Conservancy report: New Zealand Department of Conservation.

Jago, B. 1999. Feral goat (Capra hircus) in Queensland, Brisbane, Qld., Department of Natural Resources.

Johnson, T.J. 1985. Cashmere from Australia. Journal of Agriculture Western Australia, 26, 3-6.

Joshi, M.B., Rout, P.K., Mandal, A.K., Tyler-Smith, C., Singh, L. & Thangaraj, K. 2004. Phylogeography and Origin of Indian Domestic Goats. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 21, 454-462.

Kessler, C.C. 2002. Eradication of Feral Goats and Pigs and Consequences for Other Biota on Sarigan Island, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Gland, IUCN.

King, D. 1992. Home Ranges of Feral Goats in a Pastoral Area in Western Australia. Wildlife Research, 19, 643-9.

Landsberg, J. & Stol, J. 1996. Spatial Distribution of Sheep, Feral Goats and Kangaroos in Woody Rangeland Paddocks. The Rangeland Journal, 18, 270-291.

Lee, J.M. & Cremesco, P.W. 1995. Distribution and density of feral goats in the Mulga Lands of Queensland. In: Branch, L.P. (ed.). Brisbane: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Lever, C. 1985. Naturalized Mammals of the World, London, Longman.

Lim, L., Sheppard, N., Smith, P. & Smith, J. 1992. The biology and management of yellow-footed rock-wallabies Petrogale xanthopus in New South Wales. Sydney: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service Species Management Report 10.

Livecorp. 2010. Total Goat Exports [Online]. Available: http://www.livecorp.com.au/Facts_and_Stats/Statistics/Goats.aspx [Accessed 16 September 2010].

Long, J.L. 1988. Introduced birds and mammals in Western Australia. Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia.

Lund, R. & May, T. 1990. Goat fencing. Agfact A7.2.1. New South Wales: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.


Lymbery, A.J., Thompson, R.C.A., Constantine, C.C. & Kruger, J.G. 1995. The geographic distribution of hydatid infection in cattle in Western Australia Western Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal, 72, 430-432.

Maas, S. & Choquenot, D. 1995. Feral goats in outcrop areas of the semi-arid rangelands: aerial survey techniques and the cost of helicopter shooting, final report to the Bureau of Resource Sciences. Canberra.

Mahood, I.T. 1983. Feral goat, Capra hircus. In: Strahan, R. (ed.) The Australian Museum complete book of mammals. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Mahood, I.T. 1985. Some aspects of ecology and the control of feral goats (Capra hircus L.) in western New South Wales. MSc Thesis, Macquarie University.

Main, D. & Creeper, J. 1999. Coccidiosis of Brunner’s glands in feral goats. Australian Veterinary Journal, 77, 49.

Markwick, G., White, A. & Muir, S. 1992. Goat production and management. In: Simpson, I. (ed.) Rangeland Management in Western New South Wales.: New South Wales Department of Agriculture.

Mason, R.W. & Corbould, A. 1981. Colisepticaemia of Lambs. Australian Veterinary Journal, 57, 458-460.

Maurin, M. & Raoult, D. 1999. Q Fever. Clinical Microbiology Review, 12, 518-553.

Mawson, P. & Long, J. 1992. Are foxes serious predators of stock? Journal of Agriculture, Western Australia, 33, 138-141.

May, R.M. 1976. Harvesting whale and fish populations. Nature, 263, 91-92.

McCammon-Feldman, P.J., Van Soest, P.J., Horvath, P. & McDowell, R.E. 1981. Feeding strategy of the goat. Cornell International Agriculture Mimeograph 88, Ithaca, Cornell University.

McDonald, B., O’Rourke, P., Connell, J. & Hoey, W. 1988. Prenatal growth and estimation of fetal age in the Australian feral goat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 39, 729-734.

McIlroy, J.C. 1983. The sensitivity of Australian animals to 1080 poison. V. The sensitivity of feral pigs, Sus scrofa, to 1080 and its implications for poisoning campaigns. Australian Wildlife Research, 10, 139-148.

McLeod, R. 2004. Counting the cost: impact of invasive animals in Australia 2004. Canberra: Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control.

McMurtrie, A., Sandow, J. & Theakston, P. 2010. A comparative analysis of two feral goat management methods commonly used in the Cobar district to restore native groundcover. In: Eldridge, D. J. & Waters, C. (eds.) 16th Biennial Conference of the Australian Rangeland Society, 2010 Bourke. 231: Australian Rangeland Society.

McRae, I. R. 1984. A study of the feral goat in far western New South Wales. MSc Thesis, University of New South Wales.

Meat & Livestock Australia. 2006. Going into Goats: Profitable producers’ best practice guide [Online]. Meat & Livestock Australia. Available: http://www.mla.com.au/Research-and-development/Extension-and-training/Going-into-Goats [Accessed 19 September 2010].

Merrill, L.B. & Taylor, C.A. 1981. Diet selection, grazing habits, and the place of goats in range management In: Gall, C. (ed.) Goat Production. London: Academic Press.

Mitchell, J., Merrell, P. & Allen, L. 1982. Vertebrate pests in Queensland. In: Board, S. R. A. R. P. (ed.). Brisbane.

Mitchell, T. 1977. Range goat production. Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales 88, 2-4.

Moore, C.W.E. 1969. Application of ecology to the management of pastoral leases in northwestern New South Wales. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, 4, 39-54.

Morand-Fehr, P. 1981. Nutrition and feeding of goats: application to temperate climatic conditions. In: Gall, C. (ed.) Goat Production. London: Academic Press.

Morris, K.D. 1989. Feral animal control on Western Australian islands. In: Burbidge, A. (ed.) Australian and New Zealand Islands: Nature Conservation Values and Management. Perth: Department of Conservation and Land Management

Naismith, T. 1992. Feral goat control in national parks in the Flinders and Gammon Ranges. In: Best, L.W. (ed.) Feral Goat Seminar: Proceedings. Adelaide: Department of Environment and Planning.

Newsome, A.E. 1993. Ecological interactions. In: Cooke, B.D. (ed.) Australian Rabbit Control Conference. Adelaide: Anti-rabbit


Research Foundation of Australia.

Norbury, G. 1993. The proposed use of 1080 to control feral goats in Western Australia, Appendix 3, Public Environmental Review Environment Protection Authority. Agricultural Protection Board of Western Australia Assessment No. 752.

O’Brien, P. 1984. Feral goat home range: Influence of social class and environmental variables. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 12, 373-385.

O’Brien, P.H. 1983. Feral goat parturition and lying-out sites: Spatial, physical and meteorological characteristics. Applied Animal Ethology, 10, 325-339.

O’Brien, P.H. 1988. Feral goat social organization: A review and comparative analysis. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 21, 209-221.

Parkes, J. 1991. Phytotoxicity, Poison Retention, Palatability, and Acceptance of Carriers Used in Compound-1080-Foliage Baits for Control of Feral Goats. Wildlife Research, 18, 687-694.

Parkes, J., Henzell, R. & Pickles, G. 1996a. Managing vertebrate pests: feral goats Canberra, AGPS.

Parkes, J.P. 1984. Feral Goats on Raoul Island. I. Effect of Control Methods on Their Density, Distribution, and Productivity. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 7, 85-94.

Parkes, J.P. 1990. Feral goat control in New Zealand. Biological Conservation, 54, 335-348.

Parkes, J.P. 1993. Feral Goats - Designing Solutions for a Designer Pest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 17, 71-83.

Parkes, J.P., Nugent, G. & Warburton, B. 1996b. Commercial exploitation as a pest control tool for introduced mammals in New Zealand. Wildlife Biology, 2, 171-177.

Pavlov, P. & Hone, J. 1982. The Behaviour of Feral Pigs, Sus scrofa, in Flocks of Lambing Ewes. Wildlife Research, 9, 101-109.

Pedler, A. 2007. Goat abbattoir blamed for Q fever cases [Online]. Fairfax Digital. Available: http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/livestock/news/goat-abbattoir-blamed-for-q-fever-cases/64036.aspx [Accessed 19 September 2010].

Pickard, J. 1976. The effect of feral goats (Capra hircus L.) on the vegetation of Lord Howe Island. Australian Journal of Ecology, 1, 103-114.

Pickles, G.S. 1992. Feral goat commercialisation: the beginning of the end of eradication. In: Borrecco, J.E. & Marsh, R.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference. Newport Beach, California.

Pierce, R., Thorsen, M., Hawkins, K., Hansen, K., Robinson, J. & Greer, L. 2001. Te Whara (Bream Head) Restoration Plan for 2001-02 [Online]. www.breamheadtrust.org.nz/.../Bream%20hd%20plan%20-%20revision.doc. Available: http://www.yarramine.com.au/feralgoats/documents/201.doc [Accessed 16 September 2010 2010].

Pople, A.R., Grigg, G.C., Cairns, S.C., Alexander, P., Beard, L.A. & Henzell, R.P. 1996. Trends in Numbers and Changes in the Distribution of Feral Goats (Capra hircus) in the South Australian Pastoral Zone. Wildlife Research, 23, 687-96.

Ramsay , B.J. 1994. Commercial Use of Wild Animals in Australia. In: Sciences, B. O. R. (ed.). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Reddiex, B., Forsyth, D.M., McDonald-Madden, E., Einoder, L.D., Griffioen, P. A., Chick, R.R., & Robley, A.J. 2004. Review of existing red fox, wild dog, feral cat, feral rabbit, feral pig, and feral goat control in Australia. I. Audit.: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Restall, B.J. 1992. Seasonal variation in reproductive activity in Australian goats. Animal Reproduction Science, 27, 305-318.

Riney, T. & Caughley, G. 1959. A study of home range in a feral goat herd. New Zealand Journal of Science 2, 157-170.

Roberts, J.J. 1967. A note on Capra blythii Hume, 1875. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 64, 358-365.

Rolls, E.C. 1969. They All Ran Wild, Sydney, Angus and Robertson.

Rose, B. 1995. Land Management Issues: Attitudes and Perceptions Amongst Aboriginal People of Central Australia. Alice Springs: Central Land Council.

Rudge, M.R. 1969. Reproduction of feral goats Capra hircus L. near Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Science, 12, 817-27.


Rudge, M.R. 1970. Mother and Kid Behaviour in Feral Goats (Capra hircus L.). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 27, 687-692.

Rudge, M.R. 1984. The occurrence and status of populations of feral goats and sheep throughout the world. In: Munton, P.N. (ed.) Feral mammals - Problems and Potential. Morges, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Rudge, M.R. 1990. Feral goat. In: King, C. M. (ed.) The Handbook of New Zealand Mammals. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) 2007. New Animal Product Abattoirs in Australia. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Russell, B.G., Letnic, M. & Fleming, P.J.S. 2010. Manipulating feral goat access to water in the Rangelands. In: Eldridge, D. J. & Waters, C., (eds.) 16th Biennial Conference of the Australian Rangeland Society, 2010 Bourke. 212: Australian Rangeland Society.

Rutberg, A.T. 1987. Adaptive Hypotheses of Birth Synchrony in Ruminants: An Interspecific Test. The American Naturalist, 130, 692.

Sadleir, R.M.F.S. 1969. The Ecology of Reproduction in Wild and Domestic Mammals, London, Methuen.

Sangster, N. 1990. Review of internal and external parasitism of goats in Australia. Goat Health and Production: Refresher Course for Veterinarians. Proceedings 134, Post Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science. University of Sydney.

Sarawaswat, B.L. & Sengar, O.P.S. 2000. Nutrient requirements of goats - a review Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 70, 1236-41.

Schaller, G.B. 1977. Mountain Monarchs, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Seddon, H.R. 1968. Part 3, A. Arthropod Infestations (ticks and mites). B. Animals, insects and other agents harmful to stock. Diseases of Domestic Animals in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health.

Sharp, A., Holmes, K. & Norton, M. 1999. An Evaluation of a Long-Term Feral Goat Control Program in Mootwingee National Park and Coturaundee Nature Reserve, Far Western New South Wales. The Rangeland Journal, 21, 13-23.

Sharp, T. & Saunders, G. 2004. Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Feral Goats.

Shelton, M. 1960. Reproduction and breeding of goats. Journal of Dairy Science, 61, 994-1010.

Sheppard, N. 1990. The distribution and status of the yellow-footed rock wallaby in New South Wales. In: Copely, P., (ed.) Yellow-footed rock-wallaby management workshop, 1990 Adelaide. National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Short, J. & Milkovits, G. 1990. Distribution and status of the brush-tailed rock-wallaby in south-eastern Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 17, 169-179.

Southwell, C., Weaver, K., Sheppard, N. & Morris, P. 1993. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Feral Goats in the Rangelands of Eastern Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 15, 331-333.

Southwell, C.J. & Pickles, G.S. 1993. Abundance, Distribution, and Rate of Increase of Feral Goats in Western Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 15, 330Haleakala National Park, Maui, Hawaii. The American Midland Naturalist, 77, 419-451.

Yousef, M.K. 1988. Comparative physiological adaptive strategies in desert mammals, Jodhpur, India, Scientific Publishers.

Zeder, M.A. & Hesse, B. 2000. The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago. Science, 287, 2254.



10.

App

endi

x: N

SW li

sted

thre

aten

ed s

peci

es a

t ris

k fr

om fe

ral g

oats

Thre

at a

ctio

n b

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nH

abita

t deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nH

abita

t deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nH

abita

t deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nH

abita

t deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nH

abita

t deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nCo

mpe

titio

nH

abita

t deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nCo

mpe

titio

nCo

mpe

titio

nCo

mpe

titio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Type

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Anim

al sp

ecie

sAn

imal

spec

ies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Thre

aten

ed s

peci

es a

t ris

k c,

d

Scie

ntifi

c N

ame

Amyt

orni

s tex

tilis

Apra

sia in

aurit

aCt

enop

horu

s dec

resii

Cten

otus

pan

ther

inus

oce

llife

rCy

clod

omor

phus

mel

anop

s elo

ngat

aCy

clod

omor

phus

ven

ustu

sD

elm

a au

stra

lisD

iplo

dact

ylus

eld

eri

Echi

opsis

cur

taEg

erni

a m

arga

reta

eH

oplo

ceph

alus

bun

garo

ides

Legg

adin

a fo

rrest

iLe

ipoa

oce

llata

Leris

ta xa

nthu

raM

acro

pus d

orsa

lisPa

ralu

cia

spin

ifera

Petro

gale

pen

icill

ata

Petro

gale

xant

hopu

sPs

eudo

mys

her

man

nsbu

rgen

sisPt

erod

rom

a ne

glec

taPt

erod

rom

a ni

grip

enni

sPt

erod

rom

a so

land

riRa

mph

otyp

hlop

s end

oter

usU

nder

woo

disa

urus

sphy

ruru

sAc

acia

carn

eoru

m

Acac

ia c

urra

nii

Acac

ia n

otab

ilis

Acac

ia p

etra

eaAc

acia

pyc

nost

achy

aAn

goph

ora

exul

Com

mon

Nam

e

Thic

k-bi

lled

Gra

ssw

ren

(eas

tern

subs

peci

es)

Mal

lee

Wor

m-li

zard

Taw

ny C

revi

ce-d

rago

nLe

opar

d Ct

enot

usM

alle

e Sl

ende

r Blu

e-to

ngue

Liz

ard

Cycl

odom

orph

us v

enus

tus

Mar

ble-

face

d D

elm

aJe

wel

led

Gec

koBa

rdic

kCe

ntra

lian

Rang

es R

ock

Skin

kBr

oad-

head

ed S

nake

Forre

st’s

Mou

seM

alle

efow

lYe

llow

-tai

led

Plai

n Sl

ider

Blac

k-st

riped

Wal

laby

Bath

urst

Cop

per B

utte

rfly

Brus

h-ta

iled

Rock

-wal

laby

Yello

w-fo

oted

Roc

k-w

alla

bySa

ndy

Inla

nd M

ouse

Kerm

adec

Pet

rel (

wes

t Pac

ific

Subs

peci

es)

Blac

k-w

inge

d Pe

trel

Prov

iden

ce P

etre

lIn

terio

r Blin

d Sn

ake

Bord

er T

hick

-tai

led

Gec

koPu

rple

-woo

d W

attle

Curly

-Bar

k W

attle

Mal

lee

Gol

den

Wat

tleLa

ncew

ood

Boliv

ia W

attle

Gib

ralta

r Roc

k Ap

ple

NSW

Lis

ting

Criti

cally

End

ange

red

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

edVu

lner

able

Enda

nger

edVu

lner

able

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

leVu

lner

able

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

EPBC

Lis

ting

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

leVu

lner

able

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

leVu

lner

able

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

F

eral

Goa

t Eco

logy

and

Man

agem

ent i

n th

e W

este

rn N

SW R

ange

land

s: A

Revi

ew

page

78


Thre

at a

ctio

n b

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

n

Type

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Thre

aten

ed s

peci

es a

t ris

k c,

dN

SW L

istin

g

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Criti

cally

End

ange

red

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Criti

cally

End

ange

red

Vuln

erab

leVu

lner

able

En

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

EPBC

Lis

ting

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

edVu

lner

able

Vuln

erab

le

Astro

trich

a ro

ddii

Berty

a in

gram

ii

Berty

a sp

. A C

obar

-Coo

laba

h

Boro

nia

boliv

iensis

Boro

nia

gran

itica

Boro

nia

rupp

ii

Cade

llia p

enta

styli

s

Callit

ris o

blon

gaCa

ppar

is lo

rant

hifo

lia va

r. lor

anth

ifolia

Cheil

anth

es si

eber

i sub

sp. p

seud

ovell

ea

Crat

ysty

lis co

noce

phal

a

Crot

alar

ia cu

nnin

gham

iiCy

nanc

hum

eleg

ans

Dip

tera

cant

hus a

ustra

lasic

us su

bsp.

cory

noth

ecus

Diu

ris a

equa

lisD

iuris

trico

lor

Dod

onae

a m

icroz

yga

Dod

onae

a sin

uola

ta su

bsp.

acr

oden

tata

Dod

onae

a ste

nozy

gaEr

ioca

ulon

carso

nii

Good

enia

occ

iden

talis

Grev

illea

bead

leana

Grev

illea

iasp

icula

Grev

illea

kenn

edya

naHa

kea

frase

riHo

mor

anth

us b

ingh

iensis

Hom

oran

thus

bor

nhar

dtien

sis

Hom

oran

thus

crof

tianu

s

Rod’

s Sta

r Hai

r

Nar

row

-leav

ed B

erty

a

Coba

r-Co

olab

ah

Boliv

ia H

ill B

oron

ia

Gra

nite

Bor

onia

Rupp

’s Bo

roni

a

Ool

ine

Pygm

y Cy

pres

s Pin

eN

arro

w-le

afed

Bum

ble

Chei

lant

hes s

iebe

ri su

bsp.

pse

udov

elle

a

Blue

bush

Dai

sy

Gre

en B

ird F

low

erW

hite

-flow

ered

Wax

Pla

ntD

ipte

raca

nthu

s aus

trala

sicus

subs

p. c

oryn

othe

cus

Butt

ercu

p D

oubl

etai

lPi

ne D

onke

y O

rchi

d

Brill

iant

Hop

-bus

h

A H

op-b

ush

Des

ert H

op-b

ush

Salt

Pipe

wor

t

Wes

tern

Goo

deni

a

Bead

le’s

Gre

ville

a

Wee

Jasp

er G

revi

llia

Flam

e Sp

ider

Flo

wer

Gor

ge H

akea

Bing

hi H

omor

anth

us

Barra

ba H

omor

anth

us

Boliv

ia H

omor

anth

us

page

79

Fer

al G

oat E

colo

gy a

nd M

anag

emen

t in

the

Wes

tern

NSW

Ran

gela

nds:

A Re

view


Thre

at a

ctio

n b

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

nH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gG

razi

ng/ b

row

sing

Type

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Plan

t spe

cies

Thre

aten

ed s

peci

es a

t ris

k c,

dN

SW L

istin

g

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

edVu

lner

able

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Criti

cally

End

ange

red

Criti

cally

End

ange

red

Enda

nger

ed

EPBC

Lis

ting

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

leEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Vuln

erab

le

Criti

cally

End

ange

red

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

edEn

dang

ered

Enda

nger

ed

Hom

oran

thus

luna

tus

Hom

oran

thus

pro

lixus

Indi

gofe

ra h

elm

sii

Indi

gofe

ra le

ucot

richa

Indi

gofe

ra lo

ngib

ract

eaLe

ione

ma

ralst

onii

Leuc

opog

on co

nfer

tus

Mic

rom

yrtu

s gra

ndis

Mic

rotis

ang

usii

Mon

otax

is m

acro

phyl

la

Pheb

aliu

m g

land

ulos

um su

bsp.

egl

ando

sum

Pim

elea

ven

osa

Poly

gala

lina

riifo

liaPo

mad

erris

pal

lida

Pros

tant

hera

stau

roph

ylla

Pseu

dant

hus o

valif

oliu

s

Pter

osty

lis co

bare

nsis

Pulte

naea

sp. G

enow

lan

Poin

tSw

ains

ona

aden

ophy

lla

Swai

nson

a co

luto

ides

Swai

nson

a py

roph

ila

Swai

nson

a vi

ridis

Wes

tring

ia k

ydre

nsis

Xero

tham

nella

par

vifo

lia

Zier

ia a

deno

phor

aZi

eria

bux

ijugu

mZi

eria

floy

dii

Cres

cent

-leav

ed H

omor

anth

us

Gra

nite

Hom

oran

thus

Indi

go

Silv

er In

digo

Show

y In

digo

Ralst

on’s

Leio

nem

aTo

rrin

gton

Bea

rd-h

eath

Seve

rn R

iver

Hea

th-m

yrtle

e

Angu

s’s O

nion

Orc

hid

Larg

e-le

afed

Mon

otax

is

Rust

y D

eser

t Phe

baliu

m

Boliv

ia H

ill P

imel

ea

Nat

ive

Milk

wor

tPa

le P

omad

erris

Torr

ingt

on M

int-

bush

Ova

l-lea

fed

Pseu

dant

hus

Gre

enho

od O

rchi

d

Pulte

naea

sp. G

enow

lan

Poin

tVi

olet

Sw

ains

on-p

ea

Blad

der S

enna

Yello

w S

ains

on-p

ea

Cree

ping

Dar

ling

Pea

Kydr

a W

estin

gia

Xero

tham

nella

par

vifo

lia

Aral

uen

Zier

iaBo

x Ra

nge

Zier

iaFl

oyd’

s Zie

ria

F

eral

Goa

t Eco

logy

and

Man

agem

ent i

n th

e W

este

rn N

SW R

ange

land

s: A

Revi

ew

page

80


Thre

at a

ctio

n b

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Actio

n no

t spe

cifie

d

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

gH

abita

t Deg

rada

tion

Gra

zing

/ bro

wsin

g

Hab

itat D

egra

datio

n

Type

Plan

t spe

cies

Thre

aten

ed

popu

latio

nTh

reat

ened

po

pula

tion

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ityEn

dang

ered

Ec

olog

ical

Co

mm

unity

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ityEn

dang

ered

Ec

olog

ical

Co

mm

unity

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ity

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ity

Thre

aten

ed s

peci

es a

t ris

k c,

dN

SW L

istin

gCr

itica

lly E

ndan

gere

d

Vuln

erab

le

Enda

nger

ed

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ityEn

dang

ered

Ec

olog

ical

Co

mm

unity

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ityEn

dang

ered

Ec

olog

ical

Co

mm

unity

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ity

Enda

nger

ed

Ecol

ogic

al

Com

mun

ity

EPBC

Lis

ting

Enda

nger

edZi

eria

par

risia

e

Caly

ptor

hync

hus l

atha

mi

Dar

win

ia fa

scic

ular

is su

bsp.

olig

anth

a

Acac

ia lo

deri

Shru

blan

ds

Arte

sian

Sprin

gs E

colo

gica

l Com

mun

ity

Brig

alow

-Gid

gee

woo

dlan

d/ sh

rubl

and

Cade

llia

pent

asty

lis (O

olin

e) c

omm

unity

How

ell S

hrub

land

s

Mon

tane

pea

tland

s and

swam

ps

Parr

is’ Z

ieria

Glo

ssy

Blac

k-Co

ckat

oo

Dar

win

ia fa

scic

ular

is su

bsp.

olig

anth

a po

pula

tion

in th

e Ba

ulkh

am H

ills a

nd H

orns

by LG

As

Acac

ia lo

deri

Shru

blan

ds

Arte

sian

Sprin

gs E

colo

gica

l Com

mun

ity

Brig

alow

-Gid

gee

woo

dlan

d/sh

rubl

and

in

the

Mul

ga L

ands

and

Dar

ling

Rive

rine

Plai

ns

Bior

egio

ns

Cade

llia

pent

asty

lis (O

olin

e) c

omm

unity

in th

e N

ande

war

and

Brig

alow

Bel

t Sou

th b

iore

gion

How

ell S

hrub

land

s in

the

New

Eng

land

Ta

blel

and

and

Nan

dew

ar B

iore

gion

s

Mon

tane

Pea

tland

s and

Sw

amps

of t

he N

ew

Engl

and

Tabl

elan

d; N

SW N

orth

Coa

st; S

ydne

y Ba

sin; S

outh

Eas

t Cor

ner;

Sout

h Ea

ster

n H

ighl

ands

and

Aus

tral

ian

Alps

bio

regi

ons

EPBC

list

ing

= li

stin

g un

der t

he C

omm

onw

ealth

Env

ironm

ent P

rote

ctio

n an

d Bi

odiv

ersit

y Con

serv

atio

n Ac

t 199

9

a =

Pes

t ani

mal

spec

ies p

osin

g a

thre

at to

bio

dive

rsity

as i

dent

ified

in th

e da

ta se

t (se

e Ch

apte

r 3 fo

r fur

ther

det

ails)

. Pes

t ani

mal

spec

ies a

re p

rese

nted

in a

lpha

betic

al o

rder

scie

ntifi

c na

me

(com

mon

nam

e) fo

rmat

. Sp

ecie

s fou

nd in

the

Wes

tern

CM

A re

gion

are

hig

hlig

hted

red.

b =

Thr

eat a

ctio

ns a

re:

c•

= c

ompe

titio

n

cn•

= c

ontr

ol

d•

= d

iseas

e

g•

= g

razi

ng/b

row

sing

page

81

Fer

al G

oat E

colo

gy a

nd M

anag

emen

t in

the

Wes

tern

NSW

Ran

gela

nds:

A Re

view


h•

= h

abita

t deg

rada

tion

i•

= in

gest

ion

of a

lien

spec

ies

p•

= p

reda

tion

po•

= p

oor p

ollin

ator

u•

= a

ctio

n no

t spe

cifie

d.

c =

Thr

eate

ned

Spec

ies r

efer

s to

all b

iodi

vers

ity (i

.e. s

peci

es, p

opul

atio

ns a

nd e

colo

gica

l com

mun

ities

) list

ed in

Sch

edul

es 1

and

2 o

f the

Thr

eate

ned

Spec

ies C

onse

rvat

ion

Act a

nd

Sche

dule

s 4 a

nd 5

of t

he N

SW Fi

sher

ies M

anag

emen

t Act

199

4, a

s at 1

Janu

ary

2006

.

d =

For

all

thre

aten

ed a

nim

al sp

ecie

s tha

t are

des

crib

ed to

subs

peci

es le

vel t

he th

ree

nam

es a

re p

rese

nt w

ithou

t the

wor

d su

bspe

cies

, con

siste

nt w

ith th

e lit

erat

ure,

how

ever

, for

all

such

thre

aten

ed p

lant

spec

ies t

he w

ords

‘sub

sp.’ o

r ‘va

r.’ ha

ve b

een

used

to d

istin

guish

the

‘subs

peci

es’ a

nd ‘v

arie

ty’, a

gain

con

siste

nt w

ith th

e lit

erat

ure.

F

eral

Goa

t Eco

logy

and

Man

agem

ent i

n th

e W

este

rn N

SW R

ange

land

s: A

Revi

ew

page

82

Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series...

Documents

Transcript of Feral Goat Management in the Western NSW Rangelands Series...