'War on foxes' lost in paperwork

Steve Slater, stud principal of Margam Farm Charollais and Cleanskin maternals sheep studs, Balingup, has had more than 20 years of baiting experience, yet was recently denied a baiting permit by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD), which advised he needs a refresher course on how to use fox baits.

For Mario Tosana, Nine Pine Blueberries, Boyanup, controlling foxes is a frustrating and time consuming chore which appears to yield no results.

Both men face economic losses when foxes attack animals, eat fruit, dig holes and chew through reticulation piping and netting - even after investing time and energy into regenerating their properties into healthy habitats for local wildlife, which are predated upon.

They said it has been devastating to see vibrant bird life reduced to feathers, especially when their children are excited to see eggs hatch and birds pass over the paddocks and dams during migration.

Mr Slater believes foxes will become even more devastating predators of lambs this year if dry weather continues and native food sources remain scarce.

As foxes become more of an issue, they say the steps to controlling the populations are complicated, one-sided and time consuming.

They claim it has become increasingly difficult to obtain a baiting permit, saying current permit processes are leading to major delays in approvals.

"(The State government) makes more work for themselves and then the DPIRD employees can't cope - it's causing staff to burn out," Mr Slater said.

In talking to sheep farmers around the State, Mr Slater said he had noticed a decline in farmers being interested in baiting.

"You used to go and talk to a valued colleague at the ag department, look at a map, discuss the best strategies, get your permits and bait, and get on with it," Mr Slater said.

He said they did their best to get the $90 permit online.

"Then you buy expensive baits, and find no dead foxes."

The current baits used in WA are 1080 baits, which is derived from the native Gastrolobium plant and are considered a schedule 7 or dangerous poison.

Schedule 7 poisons require a lot of paperwork.

"Their (DPIRD) job is to regulate us for their revenue," Mr Slater said.

"So where do all of our levies go each time we sell livestock and fruit?"

The farmers said ever since the DPIRD began buying baits manufactured in the Eastern States, they have been far less effective and something much stronger was needed to properly address fox numbers.

"They haven't got enough 1080 in there to drop a fox," Mr Tosana said.

"Over east they haven't got native fauna eating the 1080 plants and berries, so they're very wary of their non-targeted species," Mr Slater said.

"Their local animals haven't got the resilience and immunity as what our South West fauna has.

"We're in the heart of where there's a lot of 1080 (plant), perhaps foxes have evolved some resistance to 1080."

Mr Slater said the current 1080 baits were water soluble, and didn't survive for long in damp environments, where it can be broken down by fungi .

He is concerned that foxes that eat a sub lethal dose of 1080 will not eat the bait again.

Mr Slater said one year he was putting out a lot of baits and it seemed to be attracting more foxes to his property, instead of killing them.

With everything else to manage, many farmers will either shoot if they see a fox or have no control plan at all.

"When you put in time, cost and effort for a bait that doesn't seem to work, you just can't be bothered anymore," he said.

With an interest in regenerative agriculture, Mr Slater built an island on his dam to be used by waterbirds for breeding in winter.

"We know agriculture can be a bit tough on wildlife, and it makes us feel good to see wildlife doing well," Mr Slater said.

"We want to farm with the wildlife," he said.

Years ago Mr Slater said a swan nesting on the island was killed by a fox.

"It was the most horrible thing, the kids were only young and they were so looking forward to seeing them hatch," he said.

"We had done all that work at my expense, getting a bulldozer in there to make an island."

Those who were interested in regenerating farm land or rebuilding habitats for wildlife were inadvertently creating more of a food source that wasn't there before, for out of control fox populations.

Frogs are an easy target for foxes, who hear them and dig them up out of the ground, placing concern around their poulations.

Mr Slater and Mr Tosana believe current processes made it hard for farmers to protect wildlife.

"They (DPIRD) do aerial baiting in forests, but the foxes spend most of their time on farmland where all the food is," Mr Slater said.

"When was the last time you saw a fox in the forest?"

"They could be doing more for wildlife than just aerial drops."

Mr Tosana said a few years ago he purchased 50 ducks to handle a snail problem without using pesticides.

The ducks lasted one night before the entire flock was destroyed by foxes.

To see livestock and wildlife being killed on a regular basis has worn down Mr Slater and Mr Tosana, and likely other farmers across the State.

Mr Tosana said 30 years ago his father-in-law worked for the Agricultural Protection Board (ABP), where they had three workers which serviced the South West region in baiting foxes and rabbits.

The ABP was abolished in 2010.

"They (DPIRD) need to monitor it better and listen to us, because we can tell them what's going on without coming here and setting up cameras," Mr Tosana.

"My father-in-law had fox baits that would kill the fox immediately."

The two suggested farmers could be encouraged to participate in a subsidised two-week baiting period, twice yearly, for maximum effect.

They said in this period pet owners would be advised to be more vigilant.

Mr Slater said he used to have a great relationship with his local ABP officer who gave comprehensive advice, answered questions and handed out permits.

He learned a number of fox control techniques which included the timing of baiting, for example baiting when a male fox is bringing food back to the den.

Now Mr Slater said that knowledge was difficult to find.

The out of control fox situation is another example of farmers feeling like they are up against a wall of governance which is taking a major toll mentally, physically and financially.

"We're just not valued enough anymore," Mr Slater said of local farmer knowledge.

"We're so flat out trying to tread water with input costs and labour, and the economics of it all.

"Meanwhile the government is just layering up more bureaucracy .

"They're almost taking advantage of us being distracted, if you like."

Both farmers made it clear that agricultural processes needed to be streamlined because the administrative burden was a major source of burnout for DPIRD employees and farming families who were often taking on the administrative burden with little support.

"There's not going to be any future for our kids farming if it's just going to become unviable," Mr Slater said.

"The family farm is under immense pressure and could do without having to sit in front of a computer after a day's work.

"We don't get paid for it, often the wives have to do it and then it's less time with the family."

A spokesperson from DPIRD said landholders were required under the Biosecurity and Agricultural Management Act (BAMA) to control declared species on their land.

"The use of registered pesticides for the control of declared species (including the red fox) is critical to minimising their impact on both agriculture industries and the environment," the spokesperson said.

"Only trained and authorised landholders are able to purchase and lay baits containing 1080.

"On receival of an application, a quality assurance process is undertaken to ensure all the required information is provided.

"As part of the assessment process, a landholder must complete or have completed within the last five years, online training for the safe use of a registered pesticide before an application is assessed," a spokesperson said.

DPIRD said if a landholder underwent training before a Code of Practice review, or wasn't actively using a registered pesticide, they were required to complete an online refresher course on the safe handling of a registered pesticide.

"Where possible, landholder applications are processed with a permit being issued within two to five days of being received," the spokesperson said."

However, this can extend to 21 days, depending on the quality and detail of the information provided in the initial application and the level of follow-up required.

"The continued availability of 1080 as a control method for animal pests is vitally important for the agricultural and pastoral industries, and the biodiversity of WA, and its ongoing availability is dependent upon all users using 1080 products safely and responsibly."