Hunting and social behaviour of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

The hunting behavior of leopard seals Hydrurga leptonyx was monitored opportunistically at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, during the austral summers from 1986/87 to 1994/95. Leopard seals used several methods to catch Antarctic fur seal pups Arctocephalus gazella and chinstrap penguins Pygoscelis antarctica, and individuals showed different hunting styles and hunting success. One to two leopard seals per year were responsible for an average of 60% of observed captures of fur seal pups. Leopard seals preyed on penguins throughout the summer, but preyed on fur seal pups only between late December and mid-February. Hunting behavior differed significantly between different locations on the island; fur seals were hunted only at one colony, and penguins were hunted in several areas. The relative abundance of prey types, size of prey in relation to predator, and specialization of individual leopard seals to hunt fur seal prey probably influence individual prey preferences among leopard seals. On five occasions, two leopard seals were seen together on Seal Island. Possible interpretations of the relationship between the interacting leopard seals included a mother-offspring relationship, a consorting male-female pair, and an adult leopard seal followed by an unrelated juvenile. In two incidents at Seal Island, two leopard seals were observed interacting while hunting: one seal captured fur seal pups and appeared to release them to the other seal. Observations of leopard seals interacting during hunting sessions were difficult to confirm as co-operative hunting, but they strongly implied that the two seals were not agonistic toward one another. The hunting success of individual leopard seals pursuing penguins or fur seals is probably high enough for co-operative hunting not to become a common hunting strategy; however, it may occur infrequently when it increases the hunting productivity of the seals.

THE ORGANISATION OF RABBIT CONTROL (Oryctolagus cuniculus) IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ABSTRACT: Under Western Australian legislation, landholders have an obligation to control rabbits on their properties; local authorities the responsibility to supervise their work whilst the Agriculture Protection Board has a Statewide supervisory and co-ordination role. Prior to 1950 (when the Agriculture Protection Board was formed) the central role was in the hands of a Government department which, through lack of staff and money was unable to provide adequate supervision, and rabbits were in plague proportions. Since 1950, the Board has actively engaged in a vigorous policy aimed at tighter control and supervision. To enable this, the Board has entered into a voluntary scheme with local authorities whereby the role of local supervision of landholders is passed to staff employed by the Board, but jointly financed by the local authority and the Board. A contract poisoning service is also pro¬vided by the Agriculture Protection Board to any landholder who is unable or unwilling, to meet his obligations in this area. Both services are subsidised. Two of the major reasons for the poor level of control existing before 1950, have thereby been minimised. Soon after its formation, the Board set up a research section which has devoted nearly all of its activities to applied research on control of the State's many vertebrate pest problems. In the rabbit control area, poisoning has received most attention. The "One-Shot" method of poisoning was developed after years of research. Fumigation is at present being closely studied as is the economics of complete eradication from some areas of the State. Greatest needs in the applied rabbit research field at present are: (1) a selective poison, or poisoning regime, which will not harm stock, and (2) a more complete understanding of the economics of control and eradication. The serious rabbit problem which existed in 1950 has been reduced to very small proportions, by organisational development using local research findings. These organisational developments have been implemented by circumvention rather than confrontation.