Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1815 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

there appears to have been a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the dog trapper. Between 18 March and 12 April this year, with the trapper on a full-time contract, there were just seven dogs trapped during that period, at an average cost of $285 per dog.

It was the Government's view that there needed to be a reassessment of just what was happening with the use of that trapper, for the purpose of producing an effective attack on the wild dogs roaming in those parts of the Territory. It appeared to me and to officers of the Parks and Conservation Service that an average cost of $285 per dog was not cost-effective and that we needed to consider either alternative ways of reducing the dog population or approaching the issue on the basis of a greater share of responsibility for dealing with this problem being placed in the hands of those leaseholders in that part of the Territory in whose interests it is that those dogs be trapped. I am, in fact, meeting with some of those leaseholders this afternoon, after the Assembly rises, to discuss with them their concerns. I have already agreed that a three-month extension of the trapper's agreement with the ACT be arranged so that it is possible for us to review what is going on. But it is my view that we have to face up to the question of whether or not this is an effective contract.

There are alternative ways of trapping those dogs. My office was approached the other day by one enterprising person who said that he had a very effective call that he could use that would actually attract dogs and then he used a bow and arrow to kill them. We do not know whether alternatives of that kind are quite what we are looking for, but we do believe that there needs to be some examination of what alternatives there are. I think members would agree that trapping dogs at a cost of $285 per dog probably is not cost-effective and there needs to be an exploration of what alternatives there are. That will happen over the next three months as we extend that licence for that particular trapper.

MR MOORE: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Minister, is it correct to say that before you have developed any long-term strategies to deal with the wild dogs, particularly in Namadgi National Park, you are going to withdraw the funding of the method that is currently working, even if not to your satisfaction?

MR HUMPHRIES: No. I think the Government will continue the present arrangements as they stand for that three-month period, while we assess whether there are alternative ways that - - -

Mr Moore: Are you going to try to develop some long-term strategies?

MR HUMPHRIES: We have to develop those strategies in this period. We cannot do that without there being some assessment of alternatives. There are alternatives such as aerial baiting, which is being used in other parts of Australia, and direct trapping. This particular trapper uses a wire trap that catches the dogs by the legs, and then he comes back afterwards and destroys them. There are other methods which are biological in nature. We are prepared to look at all those things. But, frankly, the present arrangements are not effective and deserve to be considered in this period of review to make sure that we have the best and most effective way of dealing with those dogs.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .