Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01747:reg:4:p25
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01747
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 4 (pt 25/80)
Character Range: 73132–76289

interactions, for example by reducing rabbit and introduced rodent populations.

Depending on location and context, and subject to further research, harnessing any control or moderating influence that dingoes or Tasmanian devils have over mesopredators (smaller predators, including feral cats) might be a relevant indirect control option. This is further discussed in section 8.8 (Objective 8).

While actions like exclusion using fencing and retaining a complex ground layer in peri-urban bushland apply to managing pet cat impacts, generally pet cats are best-managed through responsible cat ownership practices, including containing the cat to the owner's property, identification, registering and desexing. These pet ownership practices (refer also to section 8.9, and section 6.9 of the background document) can be more difficult to accomplish in remote, rural and regional areas, for example where access to veterinary services is limited or absent.

Each control or management option has limitations, risks or suboptimalities, such as:

    * Some can only be used at very small scales relative to the overall distribution of cats (e.g. cat-exclusion fencing; Felixer™ grooming traps; intensive shooting and trapping).

    * Some are only partly effective (e.g. managing habitat to reduce cat hunting success; reducing rabbit density to also reduce fox and cat density).

    * Some raise welfare concerns for cats, or other potentially affected species.

    * Some may have impacts on non-target species (e.g. poison-baiting).

    * Some are subject to regulations that prevent or constrain implementation in all or parts of a potential control area.

    * Some are subject to regulation and training pre-requisites that can be a barrier to uptake, especially to non-government land managers, including First Nations ranger groups.

    * Most options are short-term or need sustained input and potentially substantial ongoing investment to achieve and maintain effectiveness.

    * Most are only applicable in some geographic areas and are generally not coordinated across sites, agencies/organisations and jurisdictions.

    * Many are cost-prohibitive at scale and therefore only achieve limited spatial coverage.

Singly or collectively, these constraints hinder the capability of many groups across Australia to engage in effective and long-lasting control of feral cats. For example, the early engagement process showed that low effectiveness, concerns about feral cat welfare and impacts on non-target species, regulatory and training barriers, and funding constraints, were key constraints for the control of feral cats by First Nations ranger groups.

Despite these limitations, the current feral cat control effort is preventing further extinctions, helping the recovery of some threatened species, and reducing the likelihood of some currently un-threatened species from becoming threatened. Continuing to refine and support the use of these control options is essential, whilst new control approaches are developed.

New modifications or options for feral cat control aim to increase target specificity, increase efficacy, improve