Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia

Abstract

Context. Introduced sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) are increasing in south-eastern Australia, and both volunteer and contract ground-based shooters are being used by management agencies to control their undesirable impacts. However, little is known about the effectiveness and costs of volunteer and contract shooters for controlling deer populations in Australia. Aims. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of volunteer and contract ground-based shooters for controlling sambar deer and their impacts in a 5-year management program conducted in and around alpine peatlands in Alpine National Park, Victoria. Methods. Ground-based shooting operations were organised in two blocks. Within each block, four ~4200-ha management units were delimited, of which two were randomly assigned as treatment (ground-based shooting) and two as non-treatment (no organised ground-based shooting). In the treatment units, ground-based shooting was conducted using either volunteers or contractors. Each shooting team recorded their effort and the numbers of deer seen and shot, and used a GPS to record their track log and the time and locations of deer shot. Key costs were recorded for both shooter types. Key results. The catch per unit effort of contract shooters was four times greater than that of volunteer shooters. Both shooter types were most effective during the first half of the night and prior to sunrise, and when using a vehicle with a spotlight or walking with thermal-vision equipment. During the day, the use of gundogs to indicate deer significantly increased the success rate of volunteer shooters. Both volunteer and contract shooters used roads and tracks to move in the landscape, but contractors covered more ground than did volunteers. After accounting for key operational costs, the cost per deer killed was 10.1% higher for contract than volunteer shooters. Conclusions. The effectiveness of ground-based shooters is increased by operating at night using vehicles, spotlights and thermal-vision equipment. Contract shooters kill sambar deer at a faster rate, but are slightly more expensive per deer killed, than are volunteer shooters. Implications. Ground-based shooting is likely to be most effective when conducted at night with thermal-vision equipment, and in areas with a high density of roads and tracks.

Characterising a unique recreational hunting method: hound hunting of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in Victoria, Australia

“…Mean shooting distance was only 39 m for hound hunting, which is markedly lower than the average of 111 m recorded for ground-based shooting of the same species without the aid of hounds (Hampton et al 2022b). This result suggests that hound hunting allows shooters to get much closer to deer than is possible through diurnal stalking or nocturnal culling (Comte et al 2022a). The relatively high frequency of repeat shooting (>1 shot fired at a deer) of 32% for hound hunting (compared with 7-14% for stalking and culling; Hampton et al 2022b) is likely to reflect hunters shooting at moving deer and a greater ability to take follow-up shots at deer when pursued or bailed by hounds.…”

“…There is interest in increasing the role of Australian recreational hunters in programs aiming to reduce the undesirable impacts of sambar deer (Australian Senate 2021), but only stalkers have been involved in management programs (Comte et al 2022a). Hound hunting could prove useful for removing sambar deer surviving after other techniques such as stalking and aerial shooting have been used.…”

“…Last, we did not have access to the complete track logs of lead hounds, limiting our analyses to the total time and distance of the hunt and, for successful hunts, to the kill site. Hence, our inferences relating to landscape features reflect sites where hunters prefer to take shots at deer, rather than the habitat deer use during a hunt (Lebel et al 2012;Comte et al 2022a).…”

Use of density‐impact functions to inform and improve the environmental outcomes of feral horse management

“…2–5) and with the findings of a recent study in Kosciuszko National Park, adjacent to our study site (Hartley et al 2022). These results show clearly that in spite of deer and feral pig control and management of fire and human activity (Parks Victoria 2016, GSBMPWG 2020, Comte et al 2022), these combined impacts far exceed those impacts associated with the sign of feral horses. This does not mean the management of feral horses is unnecessary, but it does mean that 1) feral horses may not be the most important environmental threat and 2) the management of feral horses alone may result in very little reduction in overall environmental impact if these other important factors are not also managed (Braysher 2017).…”

A comparison of lead-based and lead-free bullets for shooting sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in Australia

“…The sambar deer is the deer species most harvested by recreational ground-based shooters in Victoria (~131 000 in 2019; Moloney and Hampton 2020). Sambar deer are also culled by professional ground-based shooters with the aim of reducing their undesirable impacts in water catchments (Bennett et al 2015) and national parks (Comte et al 2022b). There is also a commercial harvest of sambar deer for pet food (Victoria State Government 2020).…”