Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2023L01713:body:0:p32
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2023L01713
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 158439–161183

cameras are not suitable for monitoring population abundance trends for species where individuals are unable to be identified from images (Gillespie et al. 2015), as is the case for the water mouse.
Cameras may prove vital for confirming and monitoring water mouse occurrence in remote areas where shelter structures are unknown and/or the deployment of live-capture box traps is problematic. In-depth knowledge about expected tidal reach is required to safely deploy cameras and live traps (Van Dyck 1996).
Figure 18: Water mouse detections on camera traps in southeast Queensalnd (top) and West Arnhem Land (bottom).

Source: © Wildwise Environmental (top in 2021) and Indigenous Rangers (bottom in 2022).
Figure 19: Typical feeding sign of a water mouse: crab claws and carapaces in neat piles (top and centre) or scattered near the entry of a mud shelter (bottom).
Sources: © Janina Kaluza (top left @ Hussey Creek in 2012), © Derek Ball (top right @ Mackay region), © Ashley Rummell (centre left & centre right @ Maroochy River) and © Graham Webb (Maroochy Wetlands Sanctuary).
The use of conservation detection dogs for finding rare and cryptic species that occur at low densities or with clustered populations – such as the water mouse – is an emerging technique that is gaining traction due to it being an accurate, and time and cost-effective method (Reindl-Thompson et al. 2006; Long et al. 2007; Duggan et al. 2011; Leigh & Dominick 2015; Thomas et al. 2020). The cost-effectiveness of using conservation detection dogs has been proven in multiple assessments, due to the reduced effort that is necessary in the field to achieve a high to very high probability of detection (Harrison 2006; Long et al. 2007; Duggan et al. 2011; Chambers et al. 2015; Clare et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 2020). For the water mouse, which has a strong acrid odour (Gynther & Janetszki 2013), the training and use of detection dogs may be an effective method for finding shelter and feeding areas, particularly in the north of its range, where there is very little information about its occurrence. Collection of biological material (nest mud, scat, fur etc.) from easy to access locations in southeast Queensland (e.g. Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Mackay) could provide the olfactory cues that are necessary to train detection dogs for this species.
Pitfall traps set in dry floodplains in Arnhem Land have captured water mice (Woinarski et al. 2000) and two individuals became trapped in a freshly excavated latrine pit in New Guinea (Hitchcock 1998). Concurrent box trap surveys failed to detect the water mouse at the Arnhem Land site or in nearby mangrove, saline floodplain or freshwater swamp sites (Woinarski et al. 2000). As such, pitfall traps may