Current and emerging feral cat management practices in Australia

Abstract

Context

Feral cats are responsible for the decline and extinction of species globally. Predation by feral cats is identified in Australian legislation as a key threatening process. However, clear guidance to local land managers on feral cat management techniques and their impacts, limitations and potential costs can be difficult to find.

Aims

In this study, feral cat management experts from around Australia identified available management techniques and their average environmental, social, and economic impact for different ecoregions and land-use types.

Methods

We convened a 1-day structured elicitation workshop with 19 experts and five facilitators. Experts identified the techniques used for feral cat management; the effectiveness, impact, and cost of each method; and the key knowledge gaps associated with feral cat management. Facilitators aided in the design and format of the workshop, led the discussion at each stage and collated the results.

Key results

Experts identified the following 10 techniques currently used in Australia: aerial baiting; ground baiting; leghold trapping; cage trapping; shooting; tracking with detector dogs; tracking by Indigenous Rangers; habitat modification; resource modification; and exclusion fencing. In general, experts highlighted that permits, legislation and scale of application constrained many of these techniques. Aerial baiting was considered the most effective technique for reducing feral cat populations in natural and production systems. Cage trapping, shooting, or tracking with detector dogs were considered more effective in residential areas. For all techniques, efficacy estimates varied according to the following three broad vegetation structural regions: (1) deserts and xeric shrublands; (2) forests and woodlands; and (3) grasslands, savannas and shrublands. Techniques considered to have the lowest social tolerance and highest impact to non-target native species included aerial baiting, ground baiting and leghold trapping. Techniques considered to have high social tolerance and low impact on non-target species included tracking by Rangers, tracking with detector dogs, and habitat and resource modification.

Conclusions

Estimates of management action efficacy differ among land-use types and at least three vegetation structural regions. However, social licence, logistic and legislative constraints are the key drivers of the availability of methods for these areas.

Implications

Feral cat management programs should consider how program strategy can be prioritised on the basis of technique availability, region of use and expected impact.