Draft Peafowl Management Plan 2018 2023 - Transport Canberra and City Services
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Draft Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2 Purpose and objectives ................................................................................................. 2
3 Consultation .................................................................................................................. 2
4 Background ................................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Origin ...................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 Biology and Behaviour ............................................................................................ 2
4.2.1 Terminology ..................................................................................................... 2
4.2.2 Social habits .................................................................................................... 3
4.2.3 Physical features ............................................................................................. 3
4.2.4 Diet .................................................................................................................. 3
4.2.5 Breeding .......................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Predators ................................................................................................................ 4
4.4 Environmental impacts ............................................................................................ 4
4.5 Issues ..................................................................................................................... 5
4.6 Legislation .............................................................................................................. 5
4.7 Strategic policy ....................................................................................................... 6
5 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Status ..................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Previous control measures.................................................................................... 10
5.2.1 2013 .............................................................................................................. 10
5.2.2 2015 .............................................................................................................. 10
5.3 Private land verses public land (ACT) ................................................................... 13
5.4 Other jurisdictions ................................................................................................. 13
5.4.1 Townsville, Mount Stuart and Magnetic Island, Queensland .......................... 14
5.4.2 Rottnest Island, Western Australia ................................................................. 14
5.4.3 Kangaroo Island, South Australia ................................................................... 15
6 Management options for the ACT ................................................................................ 17
6.1 Do nothing ............................................................................................................ 17
6.2 Community Education/Awareness ........................................................................ 17
6.3 Trap and relocate or euthanase ............................................................................ 17
6.3 Rendering the eggs unhatchable .......................................................................... 19
6.4 Shooting ............................................................................................................... 19
6.5 Poisoning .............................................................................................................. 19
6.6 Fertility control ...................................................................................................... 20
6.7 Deterrents ............................................................................................................. 20
6.8 Bird exclusion methods ......................................................................................... 20
7 Future management of feral peafowl in the ACT ......................................................... 20
8 Other relevant documents ........................................................................................... 24
9 Reporting and reviewing .............................................................................................. 24
10 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A: Risk Assessment Guide
iDraft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
1. Introduction
Following the peafowl trapping and relocation program in 2015, the ACT Government
made a commitment to implement a more strategic approach to the management of
the ACT’s peafowl populations. This draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan (the
Plan) has been prepared by the ACT Government to address ongoing concerns from
the community about feral peafowl.
The draft Plan is consistent with the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy 2017-
2022 and in particular supports action 3.1.5: “Develop policies and where necessary
revise regulations to manage domestic animals other than companion animals in
urban areas.”
Issues raised by members of the public include traffic safety, noise, droppings and
damage to property. To date, residents in the Narrabundah area have been most
affected by peafowl although a small population of peafowl has also been identified in
Pialligo.
The ACT Government has considered a range of management options, as discussed
in this Plan, and has determined that the best option for the ACT is to implement an
annual trapping program to reduce the feral peafowl numbers with the removal of all
feral peafowl being the desired outcome. The success of this Plan will be largely
dependent on community support.
This Feral Peafowl Management Plan has been prepared for use by the ACT
Government in the management of feral peafowl on public land in the ACT. It has
been developed in consultation with key stakeholders and provides a strategic
approach to managing feral peafowl populations in the ACT.
This Management Plan:
1. identifies and considers the social, environmental and economic impacts
of the ACT’s peafowl populations;
2. provides a context for the management of peafowl in the ACT;
3. recognises that the management of feral peafowl is the shared
responsibility of both the ACT Government and the community;
4. addresses animal welfare issues;
5. provides actions for managing the peafowl over the next five years; and
6. responds to the changing environment.
The ACT Government will trap and remove peafowl where they occur on public land
and relocate them where possible. If there are no suitable re-homing options
available the birds will be trapped and humanely euthanised (see Sections 6 and 7
for details). A trapping program, to be undertaken each year prior to the breeding
season, will aim to remove all peahens (females) and peacocks (males) over a
number of years. Consideration was given to maintaining a small population of non-
breeding peafowl (i.e. males only) to satisfy the sector of the community that liked
having a population of peafowl in the area, particularly the colourful males. However,
the males become noisy during the breeding season and this would lead to further
negative impacts on residents.
The management of non-declared pest species (including peafowl) on private land is
generally the responsibility of residents and/or lessees. The ACT Government may
agree to assist in the trapping and/or removal of peafowl in some circumstances.
All treatments of the peafowl and their eggs must be in accordance with animal
welfare requirements.
1Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
2 Purpose and objectives
Purpose
The purpose of the Feral Peafowl Management Plan is to set out the approach to be
adopted in managing the feral peafowl population in the ACT in order to address the
negative impacts these birds have on the community, the environment and the
economy.
Objectives
The objectives of the Feral Peafowl Management Plan are to:
1. address community concerns about the negative impacts of feral peafowl in
the ACT;
2. prevent the feral peafowl population from spreading and impacting on other
areas, including nature reserves.
These will be achieved by trapping and removing feral peafowl periodically until all
peafowl have been removed.
3 Consultation
In preparing this plan, the ACT Government consulted with a range of stakeholders
including relevant ACT Government staff, the RSPCA, residents of Wylie and
Brockman Streets, Narrabundah, the management of the St Aiden’s Court
Retirement Village and the broader ACT community.
To insert following consultation - Summary of outcomes
4 Background
4.1 Origin
The Indian Peafowl (pavo cristatus) is a member of the pheasant family and is native
to India and Pakistan 1. Peafowl were deliberately introduced to Australia in the
1800s.
It is likely that the feral peafowl population in Narrabundah originated from small
number of peafowl that either escaped, or were released, from a now closed animal
park located on Mugga Lane in Symonston. These birds, or their offspring,
predominantly reside in Narrabundah however there have been reports of sightings
of individual birds in nearby Griffith and Red Hill.
There is also a small population of peafowl in Pialligo, in the vicinity of the garden
centres on Beltana Road. The origin(s) of this peafowl population is unclear,
however, it is thought that it may have originated from pets that have either escaped
or been released. These are primarily located on private land.
4.2 Biology and Behaviour
4.2.1 Terminology
Whilst the term ‘peacock’ is commonly used interchangeably when referring to male
and/or female birds, ‘peafowl’ is the correct terminology when referring to populations
of both sexes. The male peafowl are ‘peacocks’, the females are ‘peahens’ and the
1
National Geographic http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/peacock/ (Accessed 14
January 2016)
2Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
young are ‘peachicks’. A group of peafowl is referred to as a party, ostentation or a
muster.
4.2.2 Social habits
Peafowl are forest birds that forage on the ground during the day and roost in tall
trees at night.
Peacocks (males) tend to roost alone or in groups. At the end of their second year
young males leave the roosting sites of females and young to roost with other males
or alone. Females with young less than four months old roost separately from other
peafowl.
Peafowl descend from roost trees within the first two hours of dawn, and ascend to
their roosts about half an hour after sunset. Peafowl are most active in the early
morning and during the last two hours of daylight when they forage for food.
Peacocks and peahens flock together outside of the breeding season but during the
breeding season adult peacocks spend the majority of their day in display areas (see
Section 4.2.5).
4.2.3 Physical features
Peacocks (males) are admired for their iridescent green and blue long tail covert (the
train), which is made up of elongated upper-tail covert feathers bearing colourful
‘eyespots’ or ocelli 2. The peacocks develop ornamental tail coverts in the breeding
season. The females (peahens) lack the bright colours and do not develop the long
upper tail coverts. Both sexes have crests on their heads.
The peacocks are between 2 - 2.5 metres in length when in full plume (the tail covert
can measure up to 1.4 metres long). Peahens are smaller at around one metre in
length.
The male call is a series of repeated crowing ‘ka’ and shrill ‘eow’ calls of varying
frequency given up to eight times in a row, primarily during the breeding season.
Other distress and warning calls are given throughout the year. The females use
clucking calls when with young and when pointing out food.
Peafowl live for around 20 years in the wild.
4.2.4 Diet
Peafowl are omnivorous and their diet includes seeds, fruits, flower buds, shoots,
invertebrates and small vertebrates (i.e. small mammals and reptiles).
4.2.5 Breeding
In the ACT the peafowl breeding season is from September to January.
The peacock’s train, which makes up around 60 percent of its total body length, is
used during mating rituals and courtship displays to attract females. The long train is
moulted at the end of each breeding season. Peacocks develop their first train in
their second year but it is not as long as that of a full-grown male and lacks the ocelli.
The tail gets longer and more vibrant each year after that until the age of five or six
when the trail reaches its maximum splendour. 3
2
Schwartz L.D., 1994 in Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd., Options for controlling peafowl (Pavo
Cristatus) in New Zealand (2011)
3
New Zealand Birds Online http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/ (accessed 13 December 2015)
3Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
The peacocks open the tail covert into a fan and do a complex dance to attract
peahens. As part of the courting ritual the tail vibrates, making a rattling sound.
Peacocks display in an expanded lek which consists of several males in vocal
contact but out of view of each other. Groups of peahens visit the lek, compare the
males’ physiques and courtship displays and choose the most attractive male as their
mate. It is thought that the female chooses her mate based on the size and colour of
their feather trains. 4
Peacocks are polygamous and do not play any role in raising the chicks.
Peahens nest in shallow scrapes in the ground that may be lined with sticks, leaves
and other debris.
Clutch sizes range from four to six eggs. The eggs are laid over several days and
remain dormant until the peahen has finished laying her clutch and commences
incubating her eggs. Her body heat ‘strikes’ the eggs and the peachick embryos
begin to develop. This ensures that all of the peachicks hatch at the same time
regardless of the order in which they were laid. The incubation period is between 28
and 30 days. The chicks leave the nest shortly after hatching and forage for
themselves with the peahen pointing at food with her beak.
4.3 Predators
In Canberra, the adult peafowl has few natural predators. Their main threats include
domestic dogs, cats and European red foxes. Peachicks are particularly vulnerable
to predation due to their size and their inability to fly until they are two weeks old
which means they cannot roost in trees at night 5. In addition, peahens are not very
attentive mothers and many chicks are taken by predators. 6 Birds also fall victim to
traffic accidents.
4.4 Environmental impacts
Whilst the focus of past public campaigns has been on the negative impacts peafowl
have on local residents, peafowl can also have a negative impact on native plant and
animal species. They can compete with native birds for habitat, feed on native plants
and animals, disturb native vegetation and spread weeds. In the areas where
peafowl populations are currently established, environmental impacts are likely to be
negligible, however if the population remains unmanaged and is allowed to spread
into neighbouring nature reserves then the peafowl could have a significant impact
on the environment.
In 2013, concerns were raised about the potential for peafowl to colonise the Red Hill
Nature Reserve where they could negatively impact on the Yellow Box/Red Gum
Grassy Woodland species, including the endangered Button Wrinklewort (Rutidosis
leptorrhynchoides). Their foraging can destroy or hinder plant growth leaving bare
ground exposed to weed invasion. In addition, they can introduce weed species via
their droppings and compete with native fauna for food and roosting sites. To date
their distribution has not spread into the reserve and an important aim of the plan is
to ensure the peafowl do not colonise the reserve.
4 National Geographic, http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/peacock/ (accessed 13
December 2015)
5
City of Racho Palos Verdes, Peafowl Management Plan (2015) City of Rancho Palos Verdes
6
New Zealand Birds Online http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/ (accessed 13 December 2015)
4Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
4.5 Issues
The ACT Government has records of nuisance complaints about peafowl in the
Narrabundah and Red Hill area dating back to 2003. A majority of these complaints
relate to traffic safety concerns, noise (particularly during the breeding season),
droppings and damage to property (i.e. cars and gardens). Residents and
management of the St Aidan’s Court Retirement Village, Wylie Street, Narrabundah,
have also raised concerns about the potential slip-hazard the droppings posed for
elderly residents. The peafowl are free-range and move unrestricted between private
and public areas. It should be noted that the nuisance complaints are related to
incidents occurring on both private and public land.
Peafowl are known to carry a number of infectious diseases and parasites that have
the potential to spread, via the birds’ droppings, to livestock and/or humans. These
include, fowl pox, haemorrhagic enteritis, avian tuberculosis, fowl typhoid, fowl
cholera, coccidiosus, pigeon malaria, salmonella, tapeworms, mites and lice. 7
Transfer to humans can occur through direct contact (hand to mouth) or by drinking
rainwater from contaminated roof runoff. The extent to which these diseases are
present in the peafowl population of Canberra is unknown.
Where peafowl exist in large numbers elsewhere in Australia, such as in Townsville
(Stuart Mountain and Magnetic Island) and Kangaroo Island, the management
response has focused on their impacts on native plants animals and mitigating their
nuisance value. Peafowl have not been declared an environmental pest anywhere in
Australia.
Whilst the ACT Government has recorded numerous complaints about the peafowl
since 2003, feedback from local residents indicates that there is also considerable
support for maintaining a peafowl population. Some residents actively encourage
their presence through regular feeding. This is consistent with other jurisdictions
both in Australia and overseas (e.g. New Zealand 8 and City of Racho Palos
Verdes 9), which have also reported a polarisation of public opinion.
4.6 Legislation
The Indian peafowl and/or its activities have not been identified as a key threatening
process or a pest species under the relevant Commonwealth or ACT Government
legislation.
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
provides for the identification and listing of key threatening processes. A threatening
process is defined as a key threatening process if it threatens or may threaten the
survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological
community. For example, the following have been identified as key threatening
processes:
• predation by feral cats;
• predation by European red fox; and
• Competition and land degradation by rabbits.
7
Schwartz L.D., 1994 in Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd., Options for controlling peafowl (Pavo
Cristatus) in New Zealand (2011)
8
Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd., Options for controlling peafowl (Pavo Cristatus) in New
Zealand (2011)
9 City of Racho Palos Verdes, Peafowl Management Plan (2015) City of Rancho Palos Verdes
5Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
The ACT’s Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 provides for the declaration and
management of pest species in the ACT. Declared pest animals in the ACT include:
• European red foxes;
• wild dogs;
• wild rabbits;
• wild goats;
• European wasps;
• red imported fire ants;
• slider turtle; and
• a range of fish.
For a full list of current pest animal species visit the ACT legislation website at
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2005-21/di.asp
The ACT’s Planning and Development Act 2007 requires the custodian of an area of
public land to prepare a plan of management for that land. Public land includes:
• reserves – these include wilderness areas, national parks, nature
reserves, catchment areas and other prescribed areas of public land; and
• public land that is not a reserve including, special purpose reserves,
urban open spaces, cemeteries, lakes, sport and recreation reserves and
heritage areas.
Peafowl populations are currently confined to small areas within the urban
environment and Plans of Management for urban areas do not address feral animal
management.
All animal control actions must comply with the ACT’s Animal Welfare Act 1992.
4.7 Strategic policy
The Animal Welfare and Management Strategy 2017-2022 was developed to
ensure the ACT Government delivers a consistent and consolidated approach to
promoting improved outcomes for animal welfare and management.
This Draft Peafowl Management Plan is consistent with the Animal Welfare and
Management Strategy and in particular supports action 3.1.5: Develop policies and
where necessary revise regulations to manage domestic animals other than
companion animals in urban areas. This is a short term action to be delivered within
three (3) years.
The ACT Pest Animal Management Strategy 2012-2022 (the Strategy) sets the
framework and approach for managing the undesirable social, environmental and
economic impacts of pest species. The Strategy defines a pest animal as:
‘Any exotic animal causing, or with potential to cause, unacceptable damage
to social, environmental or economic assets.’
The management of pest species should be consistent with Figure 1 which outlines
the strategic approach to pest animal management.
The Strategy includes a risk assessment tool (Appendix A) that is a useful guide to
help decide on the priority given to managing a pest animal population. The tool
assists in determining the level of risk associated with the pest species, the feasibility
of any pest management activities and suggests appropriate actions.
6Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
The strategic approach to pest animal management
1. Define the problem or potential
problem
• Who has the problem
• Define the damage
• Measure the damage
• Mapping
• All knowledge gaps
2. Determine management priorities
• Levels of damage
• Significance of damage
• Sensitivity to damage
• Areas for treatment
3. Decide feasibility
• Economic
• Social
• Environmental factors FEEDBACK
4. Determine objectives RESEARCH
• Select performance criteria
• Identify risks
• Knowledge gaps REFINEMENT
• Adaptive management
5. Develop the program
• Consider management options
• Decide on techniques
• Allocate treatment units
• Work program
6. Implement the program
• Group action (ownership)
• Government role
• Role of others
7. Monitor and evaluate
• Assess damage reduction
• Compare over time
• Monitoring techniques
• Evaluate outcomes
Figure 1: Summary of the strategic approach to pest animal management (Braysher and Saunders
2003 10 in ACT Pest Animal Strategy 2012-2022 p. 13)
10
Braysher, M. and Saunders, G. (2003) PESTPLAN – A Guide to Setting Priorities and Developing a
Management Plan for Pest Animals. Natural Heritage Trust, Canberra.
7Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
5 Discussion
5.1 Status
On 10 August 2015, following a number of complaints from local residents, ACT
Government staff visited the area in Narrabundah where the peafowl are known to
frequent to determine the current peafowl population in that area. At dusk birds roost
in the local trees and a reasonably accurate count was undertaken at this time. The
total number of birds observed was 25, which consisted of five adult males and 20
females and juveniles combined. The 20 female and juvenile birds where observed
in one tree and four male birds were observed in four separate trees. Another male
was heard calling in the distance. This count was confirmed during subsequent staff
visits to the area.
Observations by ACT Government staff indicated the peafowl population is
concentrated in the area bounded by Brockman and Wylie Streets, Narrabundah
(Figure 2). There is also a small population of peafowl (approximately eight) in the
vicinity of Beltana Road, Pialligo, a majority of which appear to be located at the
Willow Park Garden Centre (Figure 2).
Peafowl numbers generally increase significantly during the breeding season
however, observations over a number of years indicate that the permanent bird
population is maintained at around 25-30 birds. Factors such as predation and, to a
lesser extent, traffic accidents are likely to play a role in controlling the numbers of
peafowl. As peahens nest on the ground, eggs and young chicks that cannot fly are
particularly vulnerable to predation by foxes, dogs and cats.
The following points need to be considered when determining the appropriate actions
and committing resources to address the feral peafowl population issue:
• the main negative impacts are social impacts (e.g. noise, defecation,
traffic hazards) and damage to private property;
• some members of the community support maintaining a peafowl
population in Narrabundah;
• all peafowl call, but the males are the loudest and their call carries for a
long distance. It is usually heard in the early morning and late evening,
and almost all day during the breeding season;
• complaints received from the community indicate that the negative
impacts, which escalate during the breeding season, are localised;
• if a small number of peafowl is removed each year and the breeding
capacity remains relatively unchanged then the management of feral
peafowl will require an ongoing commitment from the ACT Government.
• complaints relate to incidents that occur on both public and private land,
as such, the management of the peafowl population should be the shared
responsibility of both the ACT Government (responsible for public land)
and the community (leaseholders of private land);
• overall the population has been maintained at around 30 with peak
numbers occurring during the breeding season. It is assumed that to
date predation by foxes, dogs and cats has kept the permanent
population numbers steady;
• the peafowl population is confined to two locations as indicated on Figure
2;
8Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
• peafowl have not been declared a pest species and have not been
identified as a significant environmental risk. Whilst they may compete
with native birds for roosting sites and their diet includes small mammals
and reptiles, the impact on native species populations in the affected
areas is considered minor.
• the peafowl can carry transmittable diseases and parasites which can
affect both livestock and humans; however, the incidence of disease in
the ACT’s peafowl population is unknown and no reports of humans or
livestock contracting a disease or parasite from peafowl has been
reported; and
• cost/benefit analysis - based on previous trapping and relocation
programs, the management costs are significant and ongoing, and may
outweigh the benefits.
Figure 2: Locations of feral peafowl populations (shown in red) in Narrabundah and Pialligo, ACT
(ACTMAPi, created 11 January 2016)
9Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
5.2 Previous control measures
5.2.1 2013
In 2013, following complaints from some Narrabundah residents about the local
peafowl population, the ACT Government undertook a trapping and relocation
program to reduce, rather than eradicate, the number of peafowl in the area. This
decision was made in response to feedback from other local residents who had
expressed their desire to keep a peafowl population in the area.
A custom-designed trap was commissioned by the ACT Government. The Taronga
Zoo agreed to accept up to 20 peacocks but no peahens were able to be re-homed.
The trap was set up on private land on the grounds of the St Aidan’s Uniting Church.
Following a period of free-feeding, which allowed the birds to become accustomed to
the presence of ACT Government staff and the trap, the birds were lured into the trap
using food. Fresh corn kernels and bread were favoured by the birds. In total, eight
peacocks (males) were trapped (including two that were hand-netted) and re-homed
at the zoo. Any peahens (females) trapped as part of the exercise were released
back into the local area as these could not be re-homed.
Evaluation: The exercise focused on peacocks only. Not all of the peacocks were
removed and the number of peahens remained the same. The breeding capacity
therefore remained relatively unchanged and the population numbers increased
following the breeding season. The relocation program made little difference in the
medium-long term. In the future, finding suitable homes for trapped birds will
become increasingly difficult as demands are met.
The total cost of this exercise was approximately $10,500 which included the costs of
trap materials, feed and staff overtime. It did not include work done during work
hours (e.g. preparing briefs, delivering letters to residents and meetings). This
equates to $1308.68 per bird. Staff wages were also significant as this method is
labour intensive. Trapping was undertaken over several days and this was preceded
by a period of free-feeding. Staff needed to be present at all times to observe and
maintain the trap and monitor the welfare of the birds. The total cost does not take
into consideration the loss-of-productivity due to staff being diverted from their
regular day-to-day activities.
The initial set–up costs were higher in 2013 compared with 2015 due mainly to the
cost of the trap.
5.2.2 2015
In 2015, following a number of complaints about peafowl in Narrabundah, in the
vicinity of St Aidan’s Court Retirement Village in Wylie and Brockman Streets, the
ACT Government undertook another trapping and relocation exercise to reduce the
peafowl population in that area.
A private zoo agreed to take a number of both male and female birds, however, the
cost of trapping, holding and transporting the birds was borne by the ACT
Government.
10Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
Two trapping options (options A and B) were considered:
Option A
This option proposed to use an elevated platform to remove the birds from the main
roosting tree where up to 20 birds were known to roost (see Section 4.1).
It was proposed that staff would use the platform to reach the roosting birds and
remove them while they slept, placing each bird in a hessian bag as they were
captured. This methodology was based on the assumption that peafowl could be
caught and moved easily when they were asleep and that they would remain asleep
during the process.
This method was untested (see Box 1) and so it was proposed to undertake a trial
exercise at another location prior to implementing it at Narrabundah. When this was
not possible the decision was made to implement ‘Option B’, the trapping method
that was undertaken in 2013 with some success.
Box 1: Trialling Option A
There have since been unconfirmed reports that rural landowners in NSW
used an elevated platform (i.e. cherry-picker) to successfully remove 18
roosting peafowl from a tree in under two hours. This included brief resting
periods to allow the birds to resettle when they were roused.
If this anecdotal evidence can be substantiated this method would provide a
less labour intensive outcome that is also more reliable, cost effective and
time-efficient, particularly given that most of the peafowl roost in a single
tree and can therefore all be removed within a relatively short timeframe.
Trails undertaken on Kangaroo Island also supported this method (see
Section 5.4.3).
Option B
Option B, the trapping method used in 2013, was undertaken by ACT Government
staff over several evenings between Tuesday, 11 October and Friday, 30 October,
2015. Free-feeding was undertaken prior to trapping. A total of eight birds,
consisting of seven adult females and one juvenile male, were trapped over two
nights. After several days the birds appeared to avoid the area. It is likely that they
became wary of the trap.
As this exercise was undertaken during the breeding season adult peacocks were
not targeted due to their long tail trains which made handling them difficult.
The trap was located on the grounds of St Aidan’s Church (see Figures 3 and 4) and,
as the activities were to be undertaken on private land, permission was required from
the leaseholder (the Wesley Uniting Church) before any activity could be undertaken.
In addition, letters were delivered to residents in the immediate vicinity advising them
the trapping and relocation program was about to commence.
11Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
Figure 3: trap being set up on site at Narrabundah (2015)
Figure 4: trap on site at Narrabundah (2015)
12Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
With the relevant permissions in place, the trap was set up and birds were enticed
into the trap using food. At the end of each trapping exercise any trapped birds were
relocated to a temporary location where they were provided with shelter and food. At
the end of the trapping program all trapped birds were successfully relocated to a
private zoo near Griffith in New South Wales.
Evaluation: The outcomes of this program were similar to those in 2013. However,
on this occasion a majority of the trapped birds were female, which reduced the
breeding potential of the Narrabundah population. All of the birds were trapped
during the first attempt. The costs were less than those incurred in 2013 as the trap
that was fabricated for the 2013 program was reused, however this method remained
labour intensive and staff wages together with the costs associated with holding and
transporting the birds were not insignificant. The total cost, which includes staff
overtime, feed and transport, was around $2,500. The total cost does not take into
consideration the loss-of-productivity due to staff being diverted from their regular
day-to-day activities.
There was considerable local community interest in the trapping program with
feedback reflecting the polarisation of attitudes amongst residents both in the ACT
and elsewhere (see Section 4.5). Some were strongly opposed to the trapping
program and supported retaining a peafowl population in the area, whilst others
wanted all of them removed and believed more could have been done to address the
issues.
Residents were also advised that they could contract a private pest controller to
remove feral peafowl from private land.
The RSPCA was consulted on both occasions (2013 and 2015) to ensure the
process met animal welfare requirements.
5.3 Private land verses public land (ACT)
During the planning stage of both the 2013 and 2015 trapping and relocation
programs, ACT Government staff identified the need for a collaborative response to
the feral peafowl population given that their negative impacts occur across both
public and private land. Peafowl management should therefore be the shared
responsibility of both the ACT Government and the affected residents/lessees. That
is, where feral peafowl occur on private land they are the responsibility of the
resident/leaseholder and where they occur on public land they are the responsibility
of the ACT Government.
If the ACT Government proposes to undertake peafowl control measures on private
land then no activities should be undertaken without prior consent from the
leaseholder.
5.4 Other jurisdictions
Feral peafowl populations have also had a negative impact on other areas of
Australia, including, Townsville (Magnetic Island and Mount Stuart, Queensland),
Rottnest Island (Western Australia) and Kangaroo Island (South Australia). In these
areas the relevant authorities have adopted various measures to manage these
populations.
Rottnest Island, Magnetic Island and Kangaroo Island are fox free. Mount Stuart is
outside the normal distribution range of the fox and so sightings of foxes in this area
are uncommon. Due to a lack of natural predators to control the peafowl numbers,
13Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
the populations of peafowl in these areas have been able to increase significantly
over time.
The peafowl has not been declared a pest animal in Queensland, Western Australia
or South Australia.
5.4.1 Townsville, Mount Stuart and Magnetic Island, Queensland
In an effort to contain the feral peafowl population on Mount Stuart and Magnetic
Island, the Townsville City Council has put control measures in place to trap and
euthanise the birds in accordance with its Townsville Local Government Area Pest
Management Plan. The Plan provides the following actions for addressing peafowl:
• advise landholders of their rights and obligations in relation to peafowl and
assist in the coordinated action by landholders to remove peafowl from
properties;
• involve RSPCA in any control program of peafowl; and
• develop local law provisions to limit maximum numbers of peafowl to be kept,
registration of birds, and confinement requirements.
In 2014, the council undertook a community education campaign to:
• raise awareness of the negative impacts of peafowl on urban areas (i.e.
noise, traffic hazards, unpleasant droppings, destruction of landscaping
and causing nuisance to outdoor diners) and native wildlife (e.g.
competition for habitat); and
• deter the invasion of peafowl by discouraging deliberate feeding and
advising households not to leave pet food outdoors.
Recently, a representative of the Townsville City Council (phone interview, 22 March
2016) confirmed that a number of feral peafowl populations persisted in the Council
area, however, peafowl have been eradicated from Magnetic Island. The Council
representative stated that the Council does not have an active peafowl trapping
program as it is too labour intensive and its focus is on controlling declared pest
species.
However, the Council does loan pig traps to members of the public who have
reported having problems with the birds and want to have them removed from their
property. To ensure animal welfare issues are addressed, the Council delivers the
trap to the site and examines the suitability of the trap’s location (e.g. the provision of
shade, water, shelter). The Council then picks up the trap, including any trapped
birds, and the birds are euthanised. Prior to this, trapped birds were being re-homed
by the RSPCA but this was not ultimately addressing the issues as the peafowl were
likely to become a problem in their new location.
The Council recommends using a mirror placed opposite the door of the trap,
together with food, to attract peafowl into the trap.
5.4.2 Rottnest Island, Western Australia
Peafowl have lived on Rottnest Island since around 1910. Prior to 2009, peafowl
populations were removed and relocated to the Perth Zoo. In 2009/2010, the
Rottnest Island Authority undertook a cull of feral peafowl as part of an ongoing
program to eradicate introduced species on the island. Peahens (females) were
removed and euthanised. Following the cull, only three peacocks (males) remained
on the island.
14Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
The main purpose of the cull was to reduce the negative impact peafowl had on
native flora and fauna, and in particular migratory birds. However, it was also
undertaken to improve visitor safety and experience. 11
5.4.3 Kangaroo Island, South Australia
The report, ‘Management of Feral Peacocks (Pavo cristatus) on Kangaroo Island’,
was prepared by Natural Resources Kangaroo Island (the agency) to summarise the
outcomes of the 2013/14 management project, provide an analysis of the methods
used and make recommendations for future 12.
The report identified 18 feral peafowl populations on the island and estimated that the
island’s total peafowl population was around 345 (as of May 2014). According to a
spokesperson from the agency 13, most of these are located in peri-urban areas
where their main food source was from nearby farms.
In 2013, the agency embarked on a comprehensive peafowl management project
that included a public awareness campaign and an eradication program. At that time
there were estimated to be around 380 individuals over 21 populations on the island.
The public awareness campaign outlined the negative social, environmental and
economic impacts of feral peafowl, which included:
• the destruction of gardens;
• vehicle collisions;
• excessive noise;
• defecation on roofs;
• spreading weed seeds;
• consuming native plants and animals; and
• negatively impacting on the poultry industry (peafowl can carry poultry
diseases)
The campaign also highlighted the individual’s responsibilities under the Natural
Resource Management Act 2014 (South Australia). Keeping of domestic peafowl is
allowed but they must not be released or allowed to escape. Landholders are not
required to control feral populations on their property.
The peafowl management project resulted in the removal of around 160 peafowl, 130
of which were from one area, Dover Farm.
The report also noted that some sectors of the community supported maintaining a
peafowl population on the island and total eradication was unlikely to occur until there
was greater community support, which the agency believed could be achieved
through further community education. Continued community support is important
particularly if access to rural properties is to continue.
11
Science Network WA (website) Rottnest culls feral peacocks
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/environment-a-conservation/item/357-rottnest-culls-feral-
peacocks (accessed, 2 February 2016)
12 Natural Resources Kangaroo Island (2016) Management of Feral Peacocks (Pavo cristatus) on
Kangaroo Island. Natural Resources Kangaroo Island
13 Wiadrowski, Rory, (interview) Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South
Australia, 10 March 2016
15Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
The methods trialled on Kangaroo Island in 2013/14 included:
• Locating peafowl populations
The method trialled relied on a ‘Judas’ bird to locate feral populations. A
semi-domesticated bird (the ‘Judas’ bird) was fitted with a transmitter and
released amongst the feral peafowl population. Once the ‘Judas’ bird had
successfully integrated into the feral population it was able to be tracked
and the feral population could then be located. Peafowl were easier to
locate at night when they were roosting. During the day they tended to
take refuge in the undergrowth and were more difficult to find.
• Night capture
This method involved the capture of birds while they roosted in trees at
night. In this instance they relied on birds roosting on low branches that
were within reaching distance without the use of equipment (e.g. elevated
platforms).
While this method was labour intensive and opportunistic, the report
concluded that capturing peafowl while they were roosting was a
successful technique under the right conditions.
• The ‘chook house’ trapping method
This method was undertaken by landholders and involved observing the
birds from a distance as they were lured, using food, into their chook
house. Once they were in the chook house the door was shut remotely
using a rope. Two residents reported success using this method with one
resident catching approximately 80 birds and another catching up to 110.
• The ‘pig trap’ method
This method is comparable to the ‘chook house’ method. In this trial the
‘chook house’ was replaced with a trap similar to the one used in the ACT
in 2013 and 2015 (see figures 3 and 4). The door was held up with a stick
attached to a rope. A remote camera was used to observe the peafowl
movements, and once the peafowl were in the trap, the door was closed
remotely using the rope to remove the stick.
The report concluded that this method was labour intensive and required
someone on site to observe the birds’ movements.
• The alternative ‘pig trap’ method
This was similar to above but a light-weight ‘one-way’ door was installed
on the pig trap. The peafowl could access the trap by pushing the door
open, but once it was in the trap it could not escape. This allowed
multiple birds to be trapped without someone being on-site at all times.
The trial found that for this method to succeed the door needed to be
100mm above the ground, anymore and the birds could escape and any
less and they would not enter.
Two birds were successfully captured using this method, however, the
remainder of the population then left the area. The report concluded that
the trapping activities ‘spooked’ the remaining birds.
• Using trained dogs
This method proposed the use of trained dogs to flush out the peafowl
which are then shot in flight. This method was not trialled. The report
concluded that this method had limited uses.
16Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
• Shooting
The success of this method was dependent on locating the birds. A
‘Judas’ bird was used (see above) to locate feral populations. Shooting
was more successful at night and overall 29 peafowl were destroyed
using this method (see also Section 6).
• Nest destruction
Locating the nests presented a challenge and was labour intensive. (See
also Section 6)
The report concluded that a combination of trapping and shooting, using ‘Judas’ birds
to locate feral peafowl populations, were the most effective methods of controlling the
island’s feral peafowl (noting that the feral peafowl populations were located in less
populated rural and/or semi-rural locations)
6 Management options for the ACT
6.1 Do nothing
If no action is taken the negative impacts will not be addressed and they could
possibly escalate if peafowl population increases. There is also potential for the birds
to increase their range into adjacent suburbs and/or the Red Hill Nature Reserve.
6.2 Community Education/Awareness
Community support is important to the success of this Management Plan. Raising
community awareness of the impacts peafowl have on the community and the
environment can influence the community’s attitude and behaviour. A
communications strategy that includes raising public awareness of the issues should
be prepared as part of any proposed peafowl population control program.
Peafowl can be deterred by removing or reducing food sources and so discouraging
people from feeding the birds and warning people against leaving pet food out could
assist in reducing the negative impacts of feral peafowl.
6.3 Trap and relocate or euthanise
To meet the objectives, trapping should be undertaken annually prior to the breeding
season. This should occur until all of the peafowl have been removed. Consideration
was given to maintaining a small population of non-breeding peafowl (i.e. males only)
to satisfy the sector of the community that liked having a population of peafowl in the
area, particularly the colourful males. However, reducing the population and leaving
only a small number of peacocks, (as was done on Rottnest Island) will not address
the noise issue as the males will continue to call for a mate during the breeding
season.
The trap design should consider animal welfare issues. For example:
• the size of the trap should be large enough for the bird to stretch its wings
freely;
• the trap should provide sufficient protection from the weather and
trapping should not occur during extreme weather conditions;
• trapped birds should have access to fresh water; and
• trapped birds should not be left in the trap for an extended period of time.
Trapping is labour intensive and success varies.
17Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
Staff should be experienced in handling peafowl and remain on site during trapping
to observe and maintain the trap, and to monitor the welfare of the birds. A staff
presence also discourages members of the public from tampering with the trap.
Over time peafowl can become trap shy and avoid the area. It is therefore preferable
to aim to trap multiple birds in a single attempt rather than individuals. The trap used
in the ACT in 2013 and 2015 is capable of accommodating multiple birds.
The PestSmart Standard Operation Procedure (SOP); ‘BIR002: Trapping of Pest
Birds 14, is a guide to humanely trapping and euthanising pest bird species, including
their chicks and eggs, and can equally be applied to peafowl 15. The SOP
recommends captured birds are euthanised rather than relocated as relocation is not
an acceptable option on welfare grounds. This is based on advice from the National
Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare.
It is advisable to undertake trapping outside of the breeding season to ensure that
there are no abandoned eggs or chicks. If trapping must occur during the breeding
season then every effort should be made to locate and humanely destroy the eggs
and chicks (see below). Furthermore, outside of the breeding season the peacocks
do not have their train of tail coverts so they are easier to handle.
The highly publicised trapping and relocation programs undertaken in 2013 and 2015
attracted a number of enquiries from members of the public offering to re-home birds
on private rural properties. To date such requests have been denied on the basis
that relocating the birds could result in a feral population establishing at another
location.
Relocating peafowl is not a long term solution as there are limited suitable re-homing
options available and these will become more limited over time as demands for the
birds are met. Also, there is generally more demand for the males due to their
attractive train and so re-homing peahens can present a challenge.
To date the option of euthanising the trapped birds has not been considered due to
the potential for negative community feedback. However, this option needs to be
considered in the future given the limited opportunities for rehousing.
The ACT Government has trained staff who can undertake the trapping on public
land however, on private land leaseholders should be advised to undertake to work
themselves or contact a private licensed pest animal controller to undertake the work
on their behalf.
All work undertaken must be in accordance with animal welfare legislation.
Treating the abandoned chicks and eggs
As previously discussed, it is strongly advised trapping is undertaken outside of the
breeding season to avoid the possibility of abandoned eggs and chicks. If this is not
possible however, abandoned chicks or eggs should be located as soon as possible
and humanely destroyed. This should be done by a suitably qualified person and in
14
Invasive Animals CRC (2012) Pestsmart Standard Operating Procedure BIR:002: Trapping of pest
birds, Invasive Animals CRC and Australian Government.
15
Note: The SOP does not override relevant legislation and should only be used subject to the
applicable legal requirements (including WH&S) operating in the ACT.
18Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
accordance with animal welfare legislation. The Pestsmart SOP provides advice on
euthanasia of chicks and the destruction of eggs (see also section 6.3).
Any peafowl eggs over 14 days old (greater than half way to the hatching) are
considered to have developed sufficiently to allow perception of pain. However, it
can be difficult to determine the age of the eggs. The Pestsmart SOP therefore
recommends destroying the eggs by freezing them toDraft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
In their research paper on options for controlling peafowl, David and Latham (2011)
outlined the following issues related to using poison to manage peafowl populations:
• due to the size of the peafowl, a significant amount of poison would need to
be ingested;
• if a sub-lethal doses are ingested this may result in the bird acting abnormally
and deterring other peafowl; and
• Peafowl may fly off after ingesting the poison and die elsewhere which can be
upsetting to some members of the public.
6.6 Fertility control
David and Latham (2011) discussed the use of Ovocontrol-G® (a bait containing
nicarbazin) to control fertility in peafowl populations. Ovocontrol-G® is a daily
treatment that is administered through regular feeding. It was developed in the
United States as a fertility control agent for pigeons, geese and ducks and has not
been trialled on peafowl. Ovocontrol-G® is currently not registered for use in
Australia and it would need to be assessed and approved before it could be used.
David and Latham (2011) have also stated that the initial costs of fertility control
using Ovocontrol-G® would be high.
6.7 Deterrents
There are a number of deterrents available on the market to discourage birds, none
of which have been specifically designed to deter peafowl. Devices include ‘scare
windmills’, ‘flying eagle kites’ and laser emitters. David and Latham (2011) stated
that whilst these devices have not been tested on peafowl they are unlikely to be a
viable long-term option as peafowl will become accustomed to them over time.
There are also devices that emit sounds, for example propane gas cannons, but
these types of devices are more suited to a rural environment where there is less
potential for noise disturbance.
6.8 Bird exclusion methods
Exclusion methods include installing electric wires and monofilament lines to prevent
nuisance birds from nesting or roosting in urban areas. These methods are unlikely
to be effective in discouraging peafowl as they will relocate to another nesting or
roosting site within their range.
7 Future management of feral peafowl in the ACT
Table 1 outlines the various options for managing ACT’s feral peafowl population and
the pros and cons of each. It also identifies the options adopted by the ACT
Government.
The ACT Government is responsible for feral peafowl on public land.
Based on the analysis of the various controlled methods (see Section 6), the
preferred option is to trap and relocate peafowl. However, if relocation is not possible
because suitable homes cannot be found, birds will be trapped and euthanised.
Breeding season should be avoided, but if trapping occurs during the breeding
season every effort should be made to locate and humanely euthanise abandoned
chicks and eggs. The option of trapping the birds using an elevated platform (i.e.
cherry-picker) should also be investigated (see Box 1).
20Draft Feral Peafowl Management Plan 2018 - 2023
The community plays an important role in addressing the feral peafowl population in
the ACT and community awareness and engagement are an integral part of any
management program.
Generally, residents/lessees will be responsible for addressing feral peafowl
management issues on private land. However, the ACT Government may consider
lending traps to members of the public.
Table 1: Summary of Management Options
Option Pros Cons ACT
Government to
implement
Yes (Y)
or
No (N)
Do nothing − Some sectors of the − Negative impacts will not be N
community may addressed and could possibly
support this option escalate if peafowl population
increases
− No cost to
government − Public complaints will continue,
particularly during the breeding
season when the peacocks are
more vocal
− Populations will grow over
subsequent breeding seasons and,
depending on peachick survival
rate, the population could increase
over time
− Birds could increase their range to
adjacent suburbs or into the Red
Hill Nature Reserve
Community − The community is − Residents may not be Y
awareness kept informed of any receptive/responsive to information
control activities provided
− Raising people’s − Negative public response
awareness of the
issues is important in
gaining
understanding and/or
support for any
population control
measure
− Discouraging feeding
and educating the
public on passive
control measures can
benefit the whole
community
− Can be done to
complement other
control measures
− Low cost
Trap and − This option will − Labour intensive and opportunistic Y
relocate address negative (This option
impacts − Cost can be high could also be
Note: this − Success varies adopted by
refers to − If only some birds are leaseholders)
trapping removed this may be
21You can also read
