Oh deer, what can the matter be? Landholder attitudes to deer management in Queensland

Abstract

Deer are not native to Australia but have been present in the country for more than 150 years. For most of that time they have not been regarded as either an agricultural or environmental pest, but in the last few years there have been calls for their numbers to be reduced. Four species of deer can be found in well established populations in Queensland, mostly occurring on private land. Hence the effectiveness of any management of deer as pests will be heavily influenced by the actions of the land owners. This paper reports on a survey of the attitudes of landholders towards deer on their properties. A total of 2621 surveys was mailed to landowners and managers in regions known to support wild deer in Queensland. Of the 28.3% of surveys returned, over 75% of respondents conducted some form of primary production on their land and 65% of these had deer on their properties at least some of the time. Responses to questions were mostly uniform throughout the state, with over 50% of respondents wanting the deer population to stay at current levels or increase. Only 5% of respondents supported poisoning as a management strategy, with 17% supporting trapping. Recreational hunting and game-meat harvesting were favoured management options, with 42% and 51% support respectively. Only 25% of respondents thought wild deer caused environmental damage and 30% thought wild deer caused agricultural damage, with most associating wild deer as a less significant pest than those species already declared under state legislation. Of those surveyed, 56% agreed with the statement 'It is important to maintain wild deer populations for future generations to enjoy'. The spread of deer in Australia is of increasing concern to ecologists, and there have been calls for action to reduce their numbers on private and public land. The results of this survey imply that a significant proportion of Queensland landholders would resist legislation aimed at managing deer as a pest in areas with longestablished wild deer populations.

Slow responses of ecosystems to reductions in deer (Cervidae) populations and strategies for achieving recovery

“…Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands, Marris, 2009). Implementing deer population control is also often controversial and thus requires a high degree of political will (Porter and Underwood, 1999;Finch and Baxter, 2007;Hobbs, 2009). Management may be stalled by fear of ''the Bambi syndrome'' and retribution from animal activists, which view hunting as a ''blood sport'' (Muth and Jamison, 2000).…”

A systematic review of the impacts and management of introduced deer (family Cervidae) in Australia

“…Greenhouse trials have demonstrated that deer ingest and excrete viable seeds of exotic and native Australian plant species, including weeds (Eyles 2002;). Consumption but not excretion of viable seeds of native and exotic species has also been documented for red deer (Finch 2000) and fallow deer (Philipps 1985;Parker 2009). No Australian study has demonstrated the effects of endozoochory or epizoochory on seed dispersal, or their consequences for plant populations or communities.…”

“…Thus, on the basis of evidence from surveys of rural land holders (Finch and Baxter 2007;Peacock 2008) or inference from habitat overlap and international literature (Lindeman and Forsyth 2008;Dryden 2009), deer may compete with livestock for forage. There is evidence that deer consume pasture grasses and forbs in Australia (Finch 2000;Forsyth and Davis 2011;Davis 2013). There are also anecdotal reports that rutting sambar will harass cattle (van Bommel 2013).…”

Measuring the benefits of environmental stewardship in rural landscapes

“…For example, paying a farmer to apply lime to an acidic soil may deliver social benefit (water quality, long term productivity) but will also boost crop productivity. Similar issues are observed in water conservation (Wichelns, 1998), weed removal (Kaiser, 2006) and pest animal removal (Finch and Baxter, 2007). Our approach was to include all the services which supplied public benefit and, which in the absence of market intervention (i.e.…”