Stakeholder judgements of the social acceptability of control practices for kangaroos, unmanaged goats and feral pigs in the south-eastern rangelands of Australia
K. Sinclair A B E , A. L. Curtis B , R. B. Hacker C and T. Atkinson DA New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute, 1243 Bruxner Highway, Wollongbar, NSW 2477, Australia.
B Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (an alliance between Charles Sturt University and NSW Department of Primary Industries), Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
C Ron Hacker Rangeland Consulting Services, 29 Edward Street, Tenambit, NSW 2323, Australia; formerly New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Trangie Agricultural Research Centre, Trangie, NSW 2823, Australia.
D New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, 34 Hampden Street, Dubbo, NSW 2830, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: katrina.sinclair@dpi.nsw.gov.au
The Rangeland Journal 41(6) 485-496 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ19047
Submitted: 2 July 2019 Accepted: 2 February 2020 Published: 24 March 2020
Abstract
Total grazing pressure (TGP) is a key driver of productivity in livestock systems in the south-eastern rangelands of Australia. Sustainable grazing in these environments requires the management of grazing pressure from kangaroos, unmanaged goats and feral pigs, as well as livestock. Any practices used to control these species must be socially acceptable. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews with individuals drawn from key stakeholder groups were conducted to assess the acceptability of control practices for each of these species. Commercial shooting was the most acceptable control practice for kangaroos with a much lower acceptance of non-commercial shooting. A trap yard (at a water point) was the most acceptable practice for control of unmanaged goats with shooting least acceptable. Ground shooting, trapping and 1080 baiting were the most acceptable practices for control of feral pigs with dogging least acceptable. The two key criteria for social acceptance of control practices by stakeholder group interviewees were humaneness and effectiveness. Acceptance was also influenced by interviewees’ attitudes towards particular species. Interviewees typically distinguished between control of native wildlife and ‘feral’ animals, and between ‘resource’ animals and ‘pest’ animals. Importantly, support for control programs to manage TGP must be justifiable and employ practices that are socially acceptable.
Additional keywords: assessment, pest animal management, communities of interest, TGP, total grazing pressure.
References
ACNC (Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission) (2012). Available at: http://australiancharities.acnc.gov.au/visualisations/explore-sector-detail/ (accessed 29 January 2018).Baker, S., and Edwards, R. (2012). How Many Qualitative Interviews is Enough? Discussion Paper. National Centre for Research Methods. Available at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf (accessed 17 December 2019).
Bengsen, A., Gentle, M., Mitchell, J., Pearson, H., and Saunders, G. (2014). Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia. Mammal Review 44, 135–147.
| Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Braysher, M. (1993). ‘Managing Vertebrate Pests: Principles and Strategies.’ (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, ACT.)
Brunson, M. (1996). A Definition of ‘Social Acceptability’ in Ecosystem Management. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service No. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369, Kelso, Washington, DC, USA.
Bruskotter, J., Vaske, J., and Schmidt, R. (2009). Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14, 119–132.
| Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bryman, A. (2001). Sampling. In: ‘Social Research Methods’. pp. 83–99. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Fisher, A., Hunt, L., James, C., Landsberg, J., Phelps, D., Smyth, A., and Watson, I. (2004). Review of the Total Grazing Pressure Management Issues and Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Rangelands: A Resource to Aid NRM Planning. Desert Knowledge CRC Project Report No. 3, Desert knowledge CRC and Tropical Savannas Management CRC, Alice Springs, NT.
Fitzgerald, G. (2009). ‘Public Attitudes to Current and Proposed Forms of Pest Control.’ (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra, ACT.)
Ford, R., and Williams, K. (2016). How can social acceptability research in Australian forests inform social licence to operate? Forestry 89, 512–524.
| How can social acceptability research in Australian forests inform social licence to operate?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hampton, J., Hyndam, T., Laurence, M., Perry, A., Adams, P., and Collins, T. (2016). Animal welfare and the use of procedural documents: limitations and refinement. Wildlife Research 43, 599–603.
| Animal welfare and the use of procedural documents: limitations and refinement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harrington, C., Curtis, A., and Black, R. (2008). Locating communities in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 10, 199–215.
| Locating communities in natural resource management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mazur, N., Curtis, A., and Bosworth, A. (2014). Let’s Talk Fish: Assisting Industry to Understand and Inform Conversations About the Sustainability of Wild-catch Fishing. Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. FRDC Report No. 2012/301, Canberra, ACT.
McLeod, S., and Sharp, T. (2014). Improving the Humaneness of Commercial Kangaroo Harvesting. RIRDC Publication No. 13/116, Canberra, ACT.
MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia) (2019). Market Snapshot: Goatmeat. Available at: https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/prices–markets/documents/os-markets/red-meat-market-snapshots/2018-mla-ms_global-goatmeat.pdf (accessed 27 May 2019).
Neuman, W. (2000). Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling. In: ‘Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches’. pp. 195–221. (Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA.)
Reddiex, B., and Forsyth, D. (2006). Control of pest animals for biodiversity protection in Australia. II. Reliability of knowledge. Wildlife Research 33, 711–717.
| Control of pest animals for biodiversity protection in Australia. II. Reliability of knowledge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sharp, T., and Saunders, G. (2012a). GOACOP-Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Feral Goats. Available at: https://www.pestsmart.org.au/model-code-of-practice-for-the-humane-control-of-feral-goats/ (accessed 7 January 2020).
Sharp, T., and Saunders, G. (2012b). PIGCOP-Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Feral Pigs. Available at: https://www.pestsmart.org.au/model-code-of-practice-for-the-humane-control-of-feral-pigs/ (accessed 7 January 2020).
Shindler, B., Brunson, M., and Stankey, G. (2002). Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. No. PNW-GTR-537, Portland, OR, USA.
Shindler, B., Brunson, M., and Cheek, K. (2004). Social Acceptability in Forest and Range Management. In: ‘Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge’. Ch. 14. (Eds M. Manfredo, J. Vaske, B. Bruyere, D. Field, and P. Brown.) pp. 147–157. (Modern Litho Press: Jefferson, MO, USA.)
Sinclair, K., Atkinson, T., Curtis, A. L., and Hacker, R. B. (2018). Social Acceptability of Pest Animal Management in Meeting TGP Targets. Final Report B.TGP.1701. Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW.
Sinclair, K., Curtis, A. L., and Atkinson, T. (2019a). Do concerns about kangaroo management represent an existential threat for the red meat industry in the southern Australian rangelands? The Rangeland Journal 41, 557–565.
Sinclair, K., Curtis, A. L., Atkinson, T., and Hacker, R. B. (2019b). Public attitudes to animal welfare and landholder resource limitations: implications for total grazing pressure management in the southern rangelands of Australia. The Rangeland Journal 41, 477–484.
Stankey, G., and Shindler, B. (2006). Formation of social acceptability judgments. Conservation Biology 20, 28–37.
| Formation of social acceptability judgments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16909656PubMed |
Teel, T., Krannich, R., and Schmidt, R. (2002). Utah stakeholders’ attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 2–15.
Warburton, B., and Norton, B. (2009). Towards a knowledge-based ethic for the lethal control of nuisance wildlife. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73, 158–164.
| Towards a knowledge-based ethic for the lethal control of nuisance wildlife.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Williams, M. (1970). Reference groups: a review and commentary. The Sociological Quarterly 11, 545–554.
| Reference groups: a review and commentary.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Williams, K., Cary, J., and Webb, T. (2001). ‘Social Assessment of Forest Management Systems: A Report Prepared for Forestry Tasmania.’ (Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra, ACT.)
Wilson, G., and Edwards, M. (2019). Professional kangaroo population control leads to better animal welfare, conservation outcomes and avoids waste. Australian Zoologist 40, 181–202.
| Professional kangaroo population control leads to better animal welfare, conservation outcomes and avoids waste.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zinn, H., Manfredo, M., Vaske, J., and Wittmann, K. (1998). Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Society & Natural Resources 11, 649–662.
| Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
