Effect of the Queensland Shark Control Program on non target species : whale, dugong, turtle and dolphin : a review

The Queensland Shark Control Program (QSCP) aims to protect swimmers at ten beach areas on the east coast of Queensland between Cairns (17°S) and the Gold coast (28°S). Since its inception in 1962 it has deployed shark nets and baited drumlines in a `mixed gear strategy' that adapts the type of gear to the characteristics of a site (e .g . extreme tidal range, high energy wave action, or proximity of turtle breeding areas) . The policy has provided swimmer protection, and the incidental capture of non-target species has been lower than that resulting from deployment of nets alone (Dudley 1997; Gribble et al. 1998b). The QSCP is the only major public-safety shark-control program to routinely use mixed gear. Both the New South Wales (Holt 1998) and KwaZulu-Natal (Dudley 1998) programs use nets exclusively, although the KwaZulu-Natal program has recently tested drumlines on an experimental basis (Dudley 1998; Dudley, personal communication).

Protein feeding of Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni and cucumber fly Zeugodacus cucumis (Diptera: Tephritidae) on non-host vegetation: effect of plant species and bait height

Perimeter-baiting of non-crop vegetation using toxic protein baits was developed overseas as a technique for control of melon fly, Zeugodacus (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae (Coquillett) (formerly Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae), and evidence suggests that this technique may also be effective in Australia for control of local fruit fly species in vegetable crops. Using field cage trials and laboratory reared flies, primary data were generated to support this approach by testing fruit flies' feeding response to protein when applied to eight plant species (forage sorghum, grain sorghum, sweet corn, sugarcane, eggplant, cassava, lilly pilly and orange jessamine) and applied at three heights (1, 1.5 and 2 m). When compared across the plants, Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt), most commonly fed on protein bait applied to sugarcane and cassava, whereas more cucumber fly, Zeugodacus (Austrodacus) cucumis (French) (formerly Bactrocera (Austrodacus) cucumis), fed on bait applied to sweet corn and forage sorghum. When protein bait was applied at different heights, B. tryoni responded most to bait placed in the upper part of the plants (2 m), whereas Z. cucumis preferred bait placed lower on the plants (1 and 1.5 m). These results have implications for optimal placement of protein bait for best practice control of fruit flies in vegetable crops and suggest that the two species exhibit different foraging behaviours.

Non-target impacts of poison baiting for predator control in Australia

1. Mammalian predators are controlled by poison baiting in many parts of the world, often to alleviate their impacts on agriculture or the environment. Although predator control can have substantial benefits, the poisons used may also be potentially harmful to other wildlife. 2. Impacts on non-target species must be minimized, but can be difficult to predict or quantify. Species and individuals vary in their sensitivity to toxins and their propensity to consume poison baits, while populations vary in their resilience. Wildlife populations can accrue benefits from predator control, which outweigh the occasional deaths of non-target animals. We review recent advances in Australia, providing a framework for assessing non-target effects of poisoning operations and for developing techniques to minimize such effects. We also emphasize that weak or circumstantial evidence of non-target effects can be misleading. 3. Weak evidence that poison baiting presents a potential risk to non-target species comes from measuring the sensitivity of species to the toxin in the laboratory. More convincing evidence may be obtained by quantifying susceptibility in the field. This requires detailed information on the propensity of animals to locate and consume poison baits, as well as the likelihood of mortality if baits are consumed. Still stronger evidence may be obtained if predator baiting causes non-target mortality in the field (with toxin detected by post-mortem examination). Conclusive proof of a negative impact on populations of non-target species can be obtained only if any observed non-target mortality is followed by sustained reductions in population density. 4. Such proof is difficult to obtain and the possibility of a population-level impact cannot be reliably confirmed or dismissed without rigorous trials. In the absence of conclusive evidence, wildlife managers should adopt a precautionary approach which seeks to minimize potential risk to non-target individuals, while clarifying population-level effects through continued research.

Queensland shark control program non-target statistics by year

Spreadsheet of non-target species (bycatch) numbers in the Shark Control Program by species, date of capture, location, size and sex from 2001 onwards The shark control program (SCP) relies on nets or drumlines, or a combination of both, to minimise the threat of shark attack on humans in particular locations. Following is information on numbers and locations of sharks that have been caught by the SCP. It is important to reduce the inadvertent impacts of the SCP on other marine animals (bycatch) without compromising human safety. Bycatch levels are carefully monitored and research is focused on minimising impacts on non-target species. This dataset contains details of non-target numbers in the Shark Control program by species, date of capture, and location from 2001