To see Glenn deliver this presentation, go to our Youtube site at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCIfHwoYzvo

1. Reducing feral camel impacts across remote
Australia:
Australian Feral Camel Management Project
21st November 2013, Parliament House Theatre, Canberra

2. Session One: From Science to Solution
Speakers:
Tom Calma, AO – Chair Ninti One
Glenn Edwards – Northern Territory Government
Quentin Hart – Ninti One, Australian Feral Camel Management
Project
Roger Smith – Chair Australian Feral Camel Management Project
Steering Committee

3. Defining the feral
camel problem
Glenn Edwards

4. Presentation outline
1. History of camels in Australia
2. Recognition that feral camels are a problem
- Early research and survey work
- Camel action plan workshop
- Overview of DKCRC research

5. 1. History of camels in Australia
• First importation 1840, last importation 1907
• Domestic population peaked in 1922, size unknown~20,000
• Establishment of feral camels post 1920
Mob of feral
camels,
Durham Downs
Qld 1966

6. 2. Recognition that feral camels are
a problem
Early research
Ecology and behaviour
• Dörges and Heucke (1995,
2003)
Diet, examined impacts on
vegetation at different
stocking rates
• Grigg et al. (1995), Edwards
et al. (2001)
Movements
-

7. Early population survey work
• 1969 McKnight questionnaire survey
• 1980-83 Short et al. (1988) aerial SA, NT, WA
- 43,000 camels in Australia. Low precision.
- WA 50%, NT 27%, SA 23%
• 1984, 1993, 2001 aerial NT only
100,000
Number
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Year
1990
1995
2000
2005

8. Camel action plan workshop
Alice Springs April 2005
• Debate over how many camels and whether
there was a problem
• Recommended development of integrated
national approach to managing feral camels

9. Desert Knowledge CRC research
2006-2008
Aims
• Clarify distribution, abundance, movements and
population dynamics
• Clarify key stakeholder perceptions
• Evaluate impacts
• Review the options available for managing these impacts
• Make management recommendations

10. Key findings: population dynamics
• Camels occupy 3.3M square km
• Estimate of 953,000 camels in 2008
• 43% Aboriginal land, 22% pastoral land, 10%
conservation land, 25% crown land
• Population doubling every 9 years

11. Key findings- perceptions
Pastoral/conservation
Aboriginal
• Conservation- pest,
pastoral- pest and
resource
• 84% of pastoral properties
with camels engage in
some form of management
(mostly culling)
• Limited commercial
harvest
• Woody weed control
• Culling seen as wasteful
but …..concerns over
impacts
• Many saw camels as a
resource = jobs
• Camel meat not widely
utilised
• Little management
undertaken (some fencing
of waterholes)
• Limited commercial
harvest

12. Key findings- impacts
Positive
• Iconic species
• Tourism
• Historical perspective
• Economic resource
• Woody ‘weed’ control
Photos courtesy J. Brian 2005

13. Negative impacts- cultural, social (not costed)
• Road accidents
• Safety
• Disease risk

14. Negative impacts- economic
• Estimated impact cost of
$7.15M annually for
infrastructure damage and lost
production on pastoral land
alone

15. Negative impacts- environmental (not costed)
• Methane

16. 2007- large scale movement of camels onto pastoral
leases and Aboriginal settlements in western deserts

17. 9
2
Damage cost ($/km )
25
8
20
15
10
11
5
74
14
0
0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
>0.4
Density category (camels/km2)
The relationship between the mean value of infrastructure damage
reported by pastoral landholders over the period July 2005-June 2007
and the estimated mean density of feral camels on the property. Note:
the figures are sample sizes. Range is standard error.

18. Key findings- management options
• Available/used
– humane destruction (culling)
– commercial harvest
– exclusion (limited application)
• Not used, not available or not appropriate
– chemical, biological, fertility control

19. 2008- the problem defined
Camels distributed over very large area (3.3M km2)
Camels very mobile and move over large areas
Camel population increasing
Camels have undesirable impacts above density of 0.1-0.2
camels/km2
• Camel density over large proportion of range (~30%) exceeds
threshold for undesirable impacts
• Land owners/managers
perceive a problem exists
but views vary on what is
best/acceptable
management approach
• Market failure wrt
commercial use
•
•
•
•

20. Key findings- management
recommendations
• Manage to long-term target density of 0.1-0.2 camels/km2 at
regional scales to reduce impacts
• Incorporate key assets to allow priority setting
• Cross-jurisdictional and collaborative approach to
management needed
• Zoned approach taking into
account density (~imacts),
landholder views and
aspects of different
management approaches
• Address issues
underpinning market failure

22. www.nintione.com.au