Re: You ask the value of these pesky smelly Flying Foxes?
Re: The members of the committee of the Wildlife Protection Society Gold Coast Branch wish to bring to your attention inconsistencies in your PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAW & POLICY REGARDING FLYING FOXES.
What is the value of Flying Foxes?
1) They are part of creation which has been a gift to humans (a different but equally smelly and very polluting species), who as the most successful species so far in the evolutionary process, have a duty of care to protect this most useful species – as do our governments.
2) Within the forest ecosystem of Australia – they are the little flying foresters. They pollinate many of our iconic eucalypts, banksias, titre species, shrubs and macadamia nuts – whose flowers are most receptive at night. Flying-foxes are economically important for the timber industry and some commercially grown food crops rely on bats for pollination including bananas, Cashews, Paw paws, Durian and others. They also eat soft native figs such as Moreton Bay Figs, Port Jackson Figs, Sandpaper Figs etc and since the digestion takes about 20 minutes from mouth to anus – they spread the seeds kilometres from the parent tree. Other forest fruits with large seeds can be carried in their cheek pouches – then squeezed against the hard pallet on the roof of the mouth, they swallow the juice and spit out the fibre and seeds some distance from the source tree – some bats fly up to 80km each night.
Flying Foxes are estimated to distribute 100,000 seeds every night. Why are they punished not rewarded?
3) This dispersal of seeds repairs gaps in forests within forests when trees fall or after bush fires and in particular land damages by poor human land use. Trees have deep root systems which stabilise the degraded land from erosion and carry nutrients from below the ground, they shed leaves which form rich litter and feeds smaller grasses and shrubs. They can reclaim salted soils or eroded areas damaged by poor agricultural practices.
CHANGES TO THE LAWS PROTECTING FLYING FOXES
The Queensland Government proposes to change section 185(e) of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 to remove the requirement for methods of take of flying foxes under damage mitigation permits (DMPs) to be humane, and to require instead that methods of take comply with designated code of practice. Other legislative requirements will remain.
The new code will be based on NSW Standard operating procedure for the shooting of Flying Foxes.
QUOTA FOR TAKE OF FLYING FOXES
NSW system quotas from 2002 to 2008 monthly kills were:
- 15 Spectacled flying-foxes (Listed Endangered)
- 20 Grey headed flying-foxes (Listed Endangered)
- 30 Black flying-foxes
- 30 Little red flying-foxes
Less than 1.5% lowest estimated population of each species – ranging from 3000-5000 annually
Most flying foxes shot in orchards die slowly, up to 40% have dependent young which die slowly – either back in the roost or from injuries or die with mother.
Queensland Growers believe Taking out a handful of FF scouts will give effective control – a maximum of 10 – will work – this has not been shown correct. In NSW two-thirds shot were female – 40% of those were lactating mothers. Since at night identification of species is impossible then it is important to treat the permitted kill as a combined total – not individually.
There is also no such animal as a scout bat. Bats operate totally independent of each other and protect their food against other bats.
“REASONABLE ATTEMPT”TO PREVENT OR MINIMISE DAMAGE TO CROPS
The following methods of damage mitigation for orchardists are discussed.
1) Full Exclusion Netting and Tunnel Netting – These are the most effective methods of protection of crops from damage from flying foxes, birds, possums and any other fruit loving animals.
The weave of the net should be a small finger diameter to prevent cruel entanglement and damage to animals – as well as small nectar feeding birds and reptiles which might become entangled in larger mesh cover. It will also prevent damage to the net by such entanglement.
Benefits of exclusion net –
Apart from preventing damage to fruit from predators it also prevents damage from winds and moderate sized hail in cases normal storms. In the case of cyclones & huge hail stones the trees would have been decimated without netting anyway. Perhaps the netting can afford some protection.
The NSW study found that as well apple trees under the nets had a 59% greater yield per tree than adjacent un-netted trees and peach trees a 19% greater yield.
Drape Nets – These are cheaper and less prone to cyclone damage.
They must also have the small finger diameter weave or they will cause entanglement of all of the above birds, animals & reptiles.
Deterrent noise – This has been found ineffective if there is moderate to heavy flying fox pressure.
Deterrent Lights – Partially ineffective to ineffective – especially with moderate to heavy flying fox pressure.
Reference – Summary of business and outcomes from Flying Fox Consultative Committee 8; Dang H, Jarvis M, Fleming P, Malcolm P, Brook J, McClelland K. “Grey-headed lying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) in orchards: damage estimates, contributing factors and mitigation”.
Affordability – The NSW Government gives fruit growers a subsidy to install netting – Queensland should do the same.
There is evidence that growers who have netted typically recover the costs of netting within a few years by the extra fruit harvested due to the netting.
Electric Grids – These cause a lingering death and surviving animals have deep internal burns and die slowly. Attached young also sustain burns or die slowly when the mother dies, a major welfare issue and suffering should it be permitted.
Shooting – DMPs allowing shooting should only be issued in the case of intermittent visits by flying foxes in areas where they are not common. Changes in code of practice to remove humaneness is a sad reflection on the direction of today’s society.
Drape netting might be suitable here as it can be stored easily when not in use.
Shooting flying foxes is very difficult – in flight they are largely wing span and the head or heart form very small targets. This results in suffering of a large percentage of wounded animals which die slowly as do their dependent young. Shooting animals in trees will probably result in the loss of as much fruit as they would have eaten. Less than 10% injured animals were found and euthanased. Animals should only be handled by those who have had appropriate vaccinations against Lyssa virus. Bodies should be disposed of carefully since your scare campaign claims “risk to humans”.
In particular shotguns inflict cruel injuries – the spread of the pellets increase not immediate lethal lingering injuries.
Reference: Divljan A, Parry-Jones K, Eby P (2009) “Report on deaths and injuries to Grey-headed Flying-foxes, Pteropus poliocephalus shot in an orchard near Sydney, NSW”.
Poison baits – These accumulate in the body and as well as target species can kill other species such as rare and endangered raptors, antechinus and quolls.
1) Fruit Growers should undergo competency tests & comply with a code of practice for use of firearms.
2) The NSW Standard Operating Practice (SOP) requires review and referral to the Animal Ethics Committee.
3) Prescribe shooting specifications to result in lowest rates of wounding and likely location of wounded animals.
4) Specify type of ammunition, prevention of lead shot ingestion of non target species (like your dog or cat).
5) Specify weapons.
6) Only shoot stationary flying foxes.
7) Limit shooting distance to no more than 15m.
8) One FF targeted at once – one holds spotlight & one shoots. FFs outside orchard are not to be Locate all FFs shot before further shooting, collecting them in the early morning after shooting.
9) Euthanase only by shooting, call spotter catchers to retrieve wounded from trees.
10) Ensure regular unannounced visits to orchards to search for wounded animals.
11) Rehabilitate dependent young rather than euthanase unless unavailable in less than 12 hours.
12) Require Growers with DMPs to employ accredited spotter catchers.
13) Allow inspection of disposal sites within 24 hours.
14) DMP applicants require competency tests.
15) Applicants keep a daily log of observations, actions and outcomes relevant to DMP & Code to be submitted to the department within a month of each permit period finishing.
Reference – Carol Booth 19 July 2012 – “Damage Mitigation Permits for shooting flying-foxes in Queensland Orchards: A submission to limit their harm.”
The committee of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Gold Coast Branch urges you to take strong and careful responsibility when you issue permits to kill flying foxes across Queensland. These valuable and useful animals form a crucial link in maintaining the ecosystems of Australian rainforests, inland woodlands, wallum and coastal bushland and titre swamp.
Correct netting affords the best solution and your government would be best advised to put their support to this scheme which directly supports your fruit growers – as have the State Government of New South Wales .
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Gold Coast Branch