HOW TO USE THIS ONLINE MAGAZINE
by clicking the arrows at the side of the page.
by clicking anywhere on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level.
and move the page around when zoomed in by dragging the page.
and return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues
a PDF of this magazine.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
a page via email, Facebook, Twitter and more.
TO VIEW PREVIOUS EDITIONS
, click the
button at the bottom of the screen.
Beyond the Bale : March 2012
27 SELLING MORE WOOL 27 ON-FARM March 2012 BEYOND THE BALE responsibility for developing a solution and implementing it had to lie with the land managers if they were going to see long term success. However, the sheer scale of the problem meant they would need the support from both the industry and government to get the program up and running. The group investigated and identified possible sources of funding. Funding for the project was critical because it provided the capacity and staff needed to get the program up and running. These funds came from four major sources: 1. The South Australian Sheep Industry Fund, managed by the Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA), invested $93,700 each year for three years to cover project co-ordination, the injection service, a best practice wild dog control information sheet and a dogger. 2. The South Australian Arid Lands (SAAL) Natural Resource Management (NRM) Board invested money through the NRM levy to cover office space, vehicle and phone call costs as well as a percentage of the co-ordinator’s wages. 3. AWI provided $25,000 in funding in the second year of the program so that Biteback could be rolled out in the Gawler Ranges earlier than planned. In 2011 AWI provided additional funding of $50,000 to supply freezers, traps, lures and baits. 4. Biosecurity SA also provided 20,000 manufactured baits to the program in 2011 for aerial baiting south of the Dog Fence. The first step in developing an effective program to address wild dog with each remaining landholder to talk to them about the project and managing the wild dog problem in their area and the region more broadly. At the local planning workshops, landholders share information and map out wild dog movements, predation and current control measures. They then assess the problem and develop a management plan that outlines what control measures will be used, where and when. Today there are almost 100 landholdings involved in the program, making up 21 working groups that cover an area of 200,500km2. Generally, the groups comprise between four and 10 properties, depending on the size of the landholdings. The long-term goal is to provide landholders with the tools needed to be self-sufficient in managing wild dogs. This may require some further changes within government policies and regulations. The project aims to change how landholders think about and approach managing a natural resource management issue, and this requires time for these practices to become part of normal business and land management operations. It is anticipated during the next three to four years landholders would be able to really measure the results of their collective efforts through reduced dog numbers and stock losses. More information: To read the full case study and view a short video of the Biteback program visit www.wool.com/pestanimals#biteback control was to understand the underlying causes of the problem and the reasons why current measures weren’t working. The group prepared and submitted a funding proposal that had at its core the following key elements: l Responsibility for implementing the program would lie with the land managers l A co-ordinator would be needed to support the implementation phases of the program l Expert advice on best practice control measures would be needed to inform planning l Local area plans (LAPs) would be developed by land managers in areas with similar geography and land systems l The LAPs would be informed by land managers sharing information on dog movements, predation and current control measures used l Through local area planning, land managers would also decide what control measures to use in their area and plan a coordinated approach for implementing them. The success of the project depended on landholder involvement and the challenge was therefore to maximise landholder participation in Biteback. To make this achievable, the Board appointed Heather Miller as the Biteback co-ordinator, who worked with each NRM group to split each district into smaller working groups. About 50 per cent of landholders came to the first workshops. Over the next six months, Heather met The field days also acted as a prelude to a number of strategic planning meetings to be held in the respective regions. The meetings will help landholders and managers have input into the revision of current control plans and assist in the development of management plans based in the nil-tenure approach. The field days were aimed at providing information on all vertebrate pests, with a primary focus on wild dogs. Attendees received in-depth knowledge of wild dog management – from the effectiveness and target specificity of the problem, the impact of wild dogs on livestock and native animals, along with how landholders can be involved in community control programs and apply best practice control techniques. Professional trapper Mark Lamb demonstrating signs and tracking at the Stanthorpe field day held last December.