Post on 25-Apr-2023
i
Kangaroo Management
Plan for the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches June 2017
Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES)
Mid North Coast
PO Box 936
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)
(Part of the Office of Environment and Heritage (New South Wales))
Coffs Coast Area
PO Box 4200
Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450
Coffs Harbour City Council
Local Planning
Sustainable Places Group
Locked Bag 155
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
ii
Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches 2016
© NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Coffs Harbour City Council
This work may be reproduced for study, research or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source but not for commercial usage or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those listed above requires the written permission of the authors.
While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of printing, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, do not assume any responsibility and shall have no liability, consequential or otherwise, of any kind, arising from the use of or reliance on any of the information contained in this document.
Cover design and layout by Coffs Harbour City Council
This Plan was printed by Coffs Harbour City Council.
Copies of the Plan are available from Coffs Harbour City Council website www.coffsharbour.nsw.gov.au
This document to be cited as:
Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education, National Parks and Wildlife Service and Coffs Harbour City Council. 2017. Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. Coffs Harbour City Council, Coffs Harbour.
Cover photographs by:
Robert Watkin - Suburban kangaroos, headland kangaroos, soccer field kangaroos
Tim Henderson, University of New England – golf course kangaroos, Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club
Other photos from NPWS archives unless otherwise acknowledged.
iii
Kangaroo Management Plan for the
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
June 2017
Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES)
Mid North Coast
PO Box 936
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)
(Part of Office of Environment and Heritage (New South Wales))
Coffs Coast Area
PO Box 4200
Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450
Coffs Harbour City Council
Local Planning
Sustainable Places Group
Locked Bag 155
Coffs Harbour NSW 2450
Prepared by:
David Scotts, Coffs Harbour City Council / National Parks and Wildlife Service and edited by Sally Whitelaw, Coffs Harbour City Council
On behalf of:
Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee (see over page for membership)
iv
The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee (2015-16)
� Glenn Storrie, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Area Manager Coffs Coast (Convener)
� Lisa Baxter: Chair Mid North Coast WIRES
� Karen Thomson; a Mid North Coast WIRES Macropod Coordinator
� Kue Hall; Community Representative
� Dr Stephen Deist, Pacific Vet Care; Local Veterinarian directly involved in kangaroo care & disease research
� Assoc. Prof. Karl Vernes, School of Environmental & Rural Science, University of New England; Academic
representative involved in kangaroo research
� Dr Melissa Giese, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, Team Leader – Wildlife
� Dr Sally Townley, Coffs Harbour City Council, Councillor
� Nigel Cotsell (to February 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council, Biodiversity Team Leader
� Harpreet Jenkins (May 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council, Senior Urban Planner
� Sally Whitelaw (from June 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council, Senior Biodiversity Officer
� Barbara Webster, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Senior Ranger Community Relations
� Ann Walton (to September 2015), NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Coffs Coast Area Ranger
� Richard Ghamraoui (from September 2015), NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Coffs Coast Area
Ranger
� David Scotts (August 2015 – June 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council / NSW National Parks & Wildlife
Service, Kangaroo Project Officer
v
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Kangaroos – Iconic Australians ................................................................................................................ 8
1.1.1 The Eastern Grey Kangaroo .............................................................................................. 10
1.2 Human - Wildlife interactions in urban and peri-urban areas ................................................. 14
1.2.1 Kangaroos on the Coffs Coast .............................................................................................. 14
1.2.2 Human – wildlife interactions .............................................................................................. 15
2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 18
2.1 Objectives of the Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Collaboration with kangaroo researchers ........................................................................ 19
2.3 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee 2015-16 ..................................................... 20
2.4 A framework for the management plan ............................................................................................. 21
2.4 Community engagement as a basis for the plan ............................................................................. 23
2.4.1 A community and stakeholder engagement strategy ....................................................... 23
2.4.2 Existing community engagement regarding kangaroos .................................................... 24
3. EXISTING KANGAROO INFORMATION FOR COFFS HARBOUR ............................................... 27
3.1 Kangaroo "incidents" 2007 - 2016 ....................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Kangaroo population trends ................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Kangaroo movement trends .................................................................................................................... 31
4. KANGAROO MANAGEMENT ISSUES .................................................................................................. 32
4.1 Negative issues ............................................................................................................................................. 32
4.1.1 Kangaroo attacks and threats on people .......................................................................... 32
4.1.2 People and domestic dog attacks on kangaroos ............................................................... 35
4.1.3 Kangaroo-vehicle collisions and collision avoidance accidents......................................... 38
4.1.4 Kangaroo sickness and diseases ....................................................................................... 39
4.1.5 Garden and landscaping damage ..................................................................................... 43
vi
4.1.6 Impacts on crops and stock .............................................................................................. 43
4.2 Positive issues ............................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1 Positive living with kangaroos and nature........................................................................ 43
4.2.2 Aboriginal significance of kangaroos ................................................................................ 44
4.2.3 Eco-tourism potential ....................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Environmental and planning issues ..................................................................................................... 44
4.3.1 "Over-grazing" of threatened grassy headlands ............................................................... 44
4.3.2 Kangaroo habitat loss and population fragmentation ...................................................... 46
4.3.3 Wild dog / Dingo and fox predation on kangaroos ........................................................... 46
4.3.4 Council development planning and open space management ......................................... 46
5 STATUTORY, POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT ........................................................................ 48
5.1 NSW Legislation ........................................................................................................................................... 48
5.1.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ............................................................................... 48
5.1.2 Companion Animals Act 1998 .......................................................................................... 48
5.1.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 .......................................................... 48
5.1.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ..................................................................... 49
5.1.5 Native Vegetation Act 2003 .............................................................................................. 49
5.1.6 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 ....................................................................... 49
5.2 NSW policies, guidelines and plans relevant to urban and peri-urban kangaroo
management ................................................................................................................................................... 50
5.2.1 NPWS Policy & Procedures for Managing Kangaroos that Pose a Risk to Public Safety .... 50
5.2.2 OEH Rehabilitation of Protected Fauna Policy .................................................................. 50
5.2.3 OEH Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Fauna ............................................ 50
5.2.4 Policy- Management of Wildlife Disease and Pest Incidents (NSW Trade & Investment) . 51
5.2.5 Moonee Beach Nature Reserve Plan of Management ...................................................... 51
5.3 Coffs Harbour City Council strategies and plans relevant to peri-urban kangaroo
management ................................................................................................................................................... 51
5.3.1 Coffs Harbour City Council Biodiversity Action Strategy 2015 .......................................... 51
5.3.2 Coffs Harbour City Council Rural - Residential Strategy 2009 ........................................... 51
vii
5.3.3 Coffs Harbour City Council Our Living City Settlement Strategy 2008 .............................. 52
5.3.4 Vertebrate Pest Management Strategy (Coffs Harbour City Council) ............................... 52
5.3.5 Coffs Harbour City Council Companion Animals Management Plan ................................. 52
6. COFFS HARBOUR KANGAROO HABITAT ........................................................................................ 53
6.1 Coffs Harbour potential kangaroo habitat......................................................................................... 53
7 GUIDANCE FROM PREVIOUS PERI-URBAN KANGAROO STUDIES ....................................... 58
7.1 Peri-urban kangaroo impacts require a measured management response ........................ 58
7.2 Key issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 58
7.3 Proactive kangaroo management; community engagement and education ....................... 58
7.4 Reactive or direct kangaroo management approaches ............................................................... 59
7.5 Adaptive management ............................................................................................................................... 59
8 COFFS HARBOUR PEOPLE AND KANGAROOS ............................................................................... 60
8.1 Community engagement ........................................................................................................................... 60
8.2 On-line community surveys .................................................................................................................... 61
8.2.1 Overall summary of on-line survey results ....................................................................... 61
8.2.2 Selected summary results relative to four key kangaroo hot-spots ................................. 65
8.2.3 Overall trends and generalisations from the on-line community survey .......................... 77
8.3 Community information sessions ......................................................................................................... 80
8.3.1 Safety Beach – Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club .................................................................. 80
8.3.2 Emerald Beach foreshore ................................................................................................. 80
8.3.3 Woolgoolga market .......................................................................................................... 82
8.3.4 Heritage Park ................................................................................................................... 82
8.4 Summary of Northern Beaches community attitudes towards kangaroos ......................... 83
8.5 Other targeted community engagement ............................................................................................ 83
8.5.1 Aboriginal groups ............................................................................................................. 83
8.5.2 Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches schools ......................................................................... 84
8.5.3 Northern Beaches Caravan Parks and Holiday Parks ........................................................ 84
8.5.4 Wildlife Rescue Incorporated NSW .................................................................................. 85
viii
8.5.5 Media engagement .......................................................................................................... 85
8.5.6 Kangaroo awareness brochures and signage .................................................................... 85
9 BASELINE KANGAROO COUNTS ......................................................................................................... 90
9.1 Kangaroo hot spot population counts and monitoring ................................................................ 90
9.1.1 Kangaroo count methods ................................................................................................. 90
9.1.2 Heritage Park ................................................................................................................... 92
9.1.3 Avocado Heights .............................................................................................................. 93
9.1.4 Damerells / Look At Me Now headlands .......................................................................... 93
9.1.5 North-west Woolgoolga ................................................................................................... 93
9.1.6 Safety Beach – village & Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club ................................................... 93
9.1.7 Darlington Beach Holiday Park ......................................................................................... 99
9.1.8 Speculation about kangaroo numbers on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches .............. 99
10 KANGAROO MANAGEMENT UNITS ................................................................................................. 102
10.1 Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Unit ............................................................................................ 108
10.1.1 Heritage Park – Avocado Heights ................................................................................... 108
10.2 Priority 2 Kangaroo Management Units .......................................................................................... 111
10.2.1 Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park .................................................................. 111
10.2.2 Safety Beach – north-western Woolgoolga .................................................................... 114
10.2.3 Central-southern Woolgoolga ........................................................................................ 117
10.2.4 Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake ............................................................... 120
10.3 Priority 3 Kangaroo management Units.......................................................................................... 123
10.3.1 Corindi Beach – Red Rock Road ...................................................................................... 123
10.3.2 Corindi Valley ................................................................................................................. 126
10.3.3 Mullaway – Arrawarra Headland ................................................................................... 128
10.3.4 Moonee Beach – Forest Glen ......................................................................................... 129
10.3.5 Korora – Sapphire Beach ................................................................................................ 133
11 KANGAROO MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND OPTIONS .................................................... 136
11.1 Community engagement & education .............................................................................................. 136
ix
11.1.1 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee ........................................................ 136
11.2 Kangaroo population information ..................................................................................................... 136
11.3 Indirect kangaroo management measures .................................................................................... 138
11.3.1 Coffs Harbour Council strategic planning and open space management ........................ 138
11.3.2 Promotion of strategic kangaroo exclusion fencing ....................................................... 138
11.3.3 Promotion of kangaroo-unfriendly gardening and landscaping ..................................... 139
11.3.4 Enhanced traffic calming within kangaroo hot spots...................................................... 139
11.3.5 Promotion of responsible dog ownership ...................................................................... 140
11.4 Direct intervention- aggressive individuals .................................................................................. 140
11.5 Direct intervention- population control .......................................................................................... 140
11.5.1 Kangaroo fertility control ............................................................................................... 140
11.5.2 Kangaroo translocation .................................................................................................. 141
11.5.3 Release of Kangaroos following rehabilitation ............................................................... 141
11.5.4 Kangaroo population culling .......................................................................................... 141
11.6 Applied kangaroo research ................................................................................................................... 141
11.6.1 Collaborative kangaroo disease research ....................................................................... 142
11.6.2 Collaborative kangaroo social and ecological research .................................................. 142
12. KANGAROO MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ............................................................................................ 144
12.1 Risk assessment to prioritise management actions ................................................................... 144
12.2 Management Actions .......................................................................................................................... 150
12.2.1 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee ..................................................................... 150
12.2.2 Community engagement and education.......................................................................................... 151
12.2.3 Kangaroo population information ..................................................................................................... 153
12.2.4 Coffs Harbour Council strategic planning and open space management .......................... 154
12.2.5 Strategic kangaroo exclusion fencing ............................................................................................... 155
12.2.6 Kangaroo unfriendly gardening and landscaping ....................................................................... 156
12.2.7 Responsible dog ownership ................................................................................................................. 156
12.2.8 Enhanced traffic calming ....................................................................................................................... 156
x
12.2.9 Dealing with aggressive individual kangaroos ............................................................................. 157
12.2.10 Kangaroo fertility control ...................................................................................................................... 158
12.2.11 Peri-urban kangaroo research ............................................................................................................ 158
12.2.12 On-going liaison with non-government groups ........................................................................... 159
13 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 161
APPENDIX 1: An Evaluation of Eastern Grey Kangaroo Exclusion Fencing at St Francis
Xavier Primary School (SFX) Woolgoolga NSW. .................................................... 165
APPENDIX 2: Macropod Autopsy Protocol for Australian Registry of Wildlife Health ....... 177
APPENDIX 3: Summary results from the Survey Monkey community on-line survey
regarding community attitudes towards kangaroos and kangaroo
management ........................................................................................................................ 178
APPENDIX 4: Kangaroo Awareness and Safety Information Provided to Visitors to
Darlington Beach Holiday Park. ................................................................................................................ 180
MAPS
Map 1. The Coffs Harbour Local Government Area and the Northern Beaches Kangaroo
management Plan study area
Map 2. Eastern grey kangaroo occurrence in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area (and the
Northern Beaches study area) as indicated by the mapping of ‘kangaroo incidents’ logged by
NPWS and WIRES on their macropod data bases over the period 2007-2015.
Map 3. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 676 kangaroo incidents (attacks,
threats, motor vehicle victims, injured and sick individuals) across the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on NPWS and WIRES databases
Map 4. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 40 kangaroo attacks or threats on
people across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on the
NPWS kangaroo incidents database.
Map 5. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 45 dog attacks on kangaroos
across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on the WIRES
macropod incidents database.
Map 6. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 371 motor vehicle accidents
involving kangaroos across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as
logged on the WIRES macropod incidents database.
Map 7. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 183 records of sick (and injured)
kangaroos across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on
the WIRES macropod incidents database.
xi
Map 8. Broad potential kangaroo habitat in relation to 676 databased kangaroo incident records
across Coffs Harbour Local Government Area.
Map 9. Broad potential kangaroo habitat, 676 databased kangaroo incident records and proximity
zones around the records across Coffs Harbour Local Government Area.
Map 10. Allocated kangaroo habitat classes across Coffs Harbour Local Government Area based
upon proximity to databased kangaroo incidents
Map 11. Allocated kangaroo habitat classes on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches based upon
proximity to databased kangaroo incidents
Map 12. Six kangaroo count transect locations where baseline kangaroo counts were undertaken
during the development of the kangaroo management plan
Map 13. Road-based kangaroo count transect – Heritage Park
Map 14. Road-based kangaroo count transect – Avocado Heights
Map 15. Foot-based kangaroo count transect – Damerells / Look At Me Now headlands
Map 16. Road-based kangaroo count transect – North-west Woolgoolga
Map 17. Foot-based kangaroo count transect – Woolgoolga diggers Golf Club
Map 18. Road-based kangaroo count transect – Safety Beach village
Map 19. Buggy-based kangaroo count transect – Darlington Beach Holiday Park
Map 20. Ten Kangaroo Management Units (KaMUs) on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Map 21. Pacific Highway fauna crossings and broad potential kangaroos habitat in relation to 10
Kangaroo Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Map 22. Heritage Park – Avocado Heights Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 23. Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 24. Safety Beach - North-western Woolgoolga Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 25. Central-southern Woolgoolga Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 26 Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 27. Corindi Beach – Red Rock road Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 28. Corindi Valley Kangaroo Management Unit.
Map 29 Mullaway – Arrawarra Headland Management Unit.
Map 30. Moonee Beach – Forest Glen Kangaroo Management Unit.
xii
Map 31. Korora – Sapphire Kangaroo Management Unit.
FIGURES
Figure 1. Tourism Australia logo
Figure 2. Extract from Coffs Coast tourism brochure
Figure 3. Perceptions of kangaroo overabundance are a value judgment regarding competing
interests
Figure 4. Developing a kangaroo plan of management requires the balancing of sometimes
competing interests
Figure 5. A framework for evidence-based management of Coffs Harbour’s peri-urban kangaroos
Figure 6. Results of NPWS kangaroo vehicle transect counts at “Heritage Park” (now part of
Moonee Beach) between 2007 and 2015.
Figure 7. Number of kangaroo-related calls to WIRES across the broader mid-north coast region
between 2011 and 2015.
Figure 8. Movement patterns of 14 male kangaroos, showing outer home range and inner core
areas.
Figure 9. Relative occurrence of kangaroo attacks or threats at 8 locations across the Coffs Coast as
logged on the NPWS kangaroo incidents database 2007 – early 2016
Figure 10. A kangaroo grazing exclusion plot on Look At Me Now Headland, Emerald Beach; part of
a research program including investigations of kangaroo over-grazing on grassy headlands.
Figure 11. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 10: Do you feel that
kangaroos have a positive or negative impact on: Your quality of life; your local environment; your
appreciation for native wildlife?
Figure 12. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 16: How many kangaroos
do you regularly see at once (e.g. in a mob) around your neighbourhood (select one or more).
Figure 13. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 18: Do you believe
kangaroo populations in your local area are: Too low; Somewhat low; About right; Somewhat
high; Too high. Note slightly variable % scale for Safety Beach – but proportions remain consistent.
Figure 14. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 19: Since living at your
current address, do you believe kangaroo numbers have: Increased; Decreased; Stayed about the
same; Unsure. Note slightly variable % scales – but proportions remain consistent.
Figure 15. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 21: Are you concerned
about the chance of collision between vehicles and kangaroos in your local area?
xiii
Figure 16. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 22: Within the last year,
how many times have you been involved in a vehicle collision with kangaroos in your
neighbourhood?
Figure 17. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 30: Do you believe
restrictions should be placed on kangaroos or dogs to reduce interactions between the two?
Figure 18. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 38: Have you seen any
kangaroos with signs of disease in your local area?
Figure 19. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 40: Are you concerned
about potential conflict between yourself and kangaroos?
Figure 20. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 41: in order from 1 to 4,
which interactions are you most concerned about? (1 being highest concern, 4 being least
concerned)
Figure 21. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 45: If attacked by a
kangaroo, would you most likely: Run away; Fight Back; Curl into a ball; Drop to the ground and
crawl away; Call for help; Do nothing; Unsure?
Figure 22. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 53: Overall, how do you
feel about your interactions with kangaroos in your local area: Positive interactions; Somewhat
positive, neutral, slightly negative, negative.
Figure 23. Kangaroo community information session at Woolgoolga market, 12th
March 2016.
Figure 24. Kangaroo count results – Heritage Park 2015-16
Figure 25. Kangaroo count results – Avocado Heights
Figure 26. Kangaroo count results – Damerells / Look At Me Now headlands
Figure 27. Kangaroo count results – North-west Woolgoolga
Figure 28. Kangaroo count results – Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club + Safety Beach village
Figure 29. Kangaroo count results – Darlington Beach Holiday Park
Figure 30. Relative proportions of four types of kangaroo incidents within 10 Kangaroo
Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Figure 31. Kangaroo management approaches and options flowing from identified kangaroo
management issues.
xiv
TABLES
Table 1. Broad description of macropod (kangaroo, wallaby & rat-kangaroo) occurrence on the
NSW North Coast, within Coffs Harbour LGA and on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Table 2. Reported kangaroo incidents 2007 – early 2016; NPWS & WIRES databases.
Table 3. Kangaroo management issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches.
Table 4. Area of broadly mapped kangaroo habitat classes within 10 Kangaroo Management Units
on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Table 5. Number of kangaroo incidents (from NPWS & WIRES databases) within 10 Kangaroo
Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Table 6. Perceived scale of management issues within 10 Kangaroo Management Units on the
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Table 7. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo
management objectives 1 -4 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management
priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange:
high; green- medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to
text in section 12.2.
Table 8. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo
management objectives 4 - 7 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management
priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange:
high; green- medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to
text in section 12.2.
Table 9. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo
management objectives 8 & 9 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management
priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange:
high; green- medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to
text in section 12.2.
Table 10. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo
management objectives 10 - 13 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management
priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange:
high; green- medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to
text in section 12.2.
Table 11. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo management objectives 14 - 16 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange: high; green- medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to text in section 12.2.
xv
ABBREVIATIONS / TERMS COMMONLY USED IN THE TEXT
Avocado Heights A rural-residential estate formerly (and still informally) referred to as Avocado Heights but officially part of Moonee Beach on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
CHCC Coffs Harbour City Council
Coffs Coast Region encompassing the coast, plains and escarpment from Red Rock in the
north to Urunga in the south and inland to Bellingen
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Beachside villages and locations to the north of Coffs Harbour and within the Coffs Harbour LGA
Heritage Park
A rural-residential estate formerly (and still informally) referred to as Heritage
Park but officially part of Moonee Beach on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
LEP
Local Environmental Plan under the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979 (Coffs Harbour LEP 1988, superseded by Coffs Harbour LEP 2000, superseded by Coffs Harbour LEP 2013)
LGA Local Government Area
NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service (part of OEH)
Kangaroo In the context of this report this is a direct reference to the Eastern Grey Kangaroo (Macropus giganteus)
KaMUs Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches Kangaroo Management Units
KaPZs Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches Kangaroo Priority Zones
OEH Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW)
Peri-urban Hybrid landscapes of fragmented urban and rural characteristics (see Box 1 in text for more detail)
TSC Act 1995 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
UNE University of New England
WIRES Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service
1
SUMMARY
Eastern grey kangaroos co-exist with people in urban, rural-residential and rural locations along the
Coffs Coast. In some parts of the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches relatively large numbers of
kangaroos live in very close proximity to people and, as urban areas grow, more and more people
are coming into contact with these wild, powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals. When
kangaroos reach high numbers in urban and peri-urban locations they may impinge on human
activities, pose a risk to their own welfare and have a negative effect on other aspects of local
biodiversity. When this occurs kangaroos can be considered to be in need of tailored management
actions.
While most kangaroo – people interactions are positive in this region, kangaroos can pose direct and
indirect threats to people. Direct threats include occasional physical attacks, indirect threats include
vehicle – kangaroo road collisions and collision avoidance. By way of contrast, kangaroos are
sometimes subjected to persecution and harassment by people and their dogs.
This kangaroo management plan has been developed through a collaborative project involving the
Coffs Harbour community (and particularly communities from peri-urban locations on the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches), government agencies, non-government organizations (WIRES),
veterinarians and researchers; a Kangaroo Management Committee has overseen the project. The
plan’s overall objective is to help people and kangaroos to live safely and sustainably together in
Coffs Harbour’s Northern Beaches precincts. The plan aims to reduce negative interactions between
people and kangaroos by empowering people with knowledge and strategies to live and recreate
alongside a sustainable population of wild kangaroos.
Project activities associated with development of the plan have facilitated the initiation and
refinement of knowledge regarding Coffs Harbour’s kangaroos. A collaborative program of
community engagement has formed the basis for the development of the plan. This included an on-
line community survey (undertaken by Tim Henderson, UNE Honours candidate), face to face
community field days and targeted communication.
Key findings of the community engagement program indicate that the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches community, and particularly people living with abundant kangaroos in peri-urban locations,
are overwhelmingly in favour of retaining wild kangaroos in their environment (77% of on-line
survey respondents) and that they feel positive (or somewhat positive) about their interactions with
kangaroos (78% of respondents). However a significant number of people (around 25% of
respondents) had experienced negative interactions with kangaroos or were concerned about
potential conflict with kangaroos, some to the extent that they are afraid to leave their houses or
cars when kangaroos are in close proximity. In addition, 10% of survey respondents had been
involved in a recent kangaroo-motor vehicle collision and 60% in a near miss.
Data collated from various sources indicate a trend of increasing kangaroo numbers at a number of
peri-urban kangaroo locations on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches over the last decade or more.
In some locations kangaroos may be considered in need of management intervention within the
context of their social, economic, animal welfare and ecological impacts. Approaches for direct
population control in these cases are reviewed but in reality options are limited and the community
2
has indicated widespread support for non-lethal methods to reduce any adverse impacts of
kangaroos in peri-urban Coffs Harbour.
Ten Kangaroo Management Units (KaMUs) are identified and mapped on the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches based largely on the distribution of kangaroo incidents (kangaroo attacks,
kangaroo-vehicle collisions, sick and injured kangaroos) registered on the NPWS and WIRES
macropod databases over the 2007-2015 period. Each KaMU is different in terms of specific
kangaroo-related issues (e.g. urban or peri-urban residential areas, holiday or caravan parks, golf
courses, headland reserves) and is considered separately. Kangaroos are considered to be currently
to be a high priority for management, within the context of outlined assessment criteria, within five
KaMUs- Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park, Safety Beach – north-western Woolgoolga,
Central – southern Woolgoolga, Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake and Heritage Park –
Avocado Heights KaMUs. Based upon accumulated information and community feedback the
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights KaMU is considered the current highest kangaroo management
priority (Priority 1).
State of the art approaches to kangaroo management have been investigated in formulating the
plan and kangaroo management actions are proposed. Three key management approaches are
featured, amongst others (see Information Box A):
1. Ongoing open community engagement and education (a broad action building upon a wider
ongoing NPWS kangaroo community engagement program);
2. Indirect management including informed and strategic fencing, development planning and open
space management;
3. Investigation and trialling of direct population management through fertility control.
Kangaroo management on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches, as elsewhere, involves the
consideration and integration of a complex mixture of issues, data, opinions and attitudes. There are
no black and white answers and adaptive management, informed by ongoing and open community
engagement and education as well as the findings of strategic research and citizen science, will be
required over the long term.
Action relating to kangaroo management issues is not supported by statutory drivers (as opposed to
koala management for example) meaning that other drivers will be needed to trigger action from
relevant authorities in response to identified issues. One key driver is the consequences of inaction
on kangaroo issues as they relate to the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. Inaction carries substantial
risks and potentially significant social, economic and animal welfare implications whereas
application of informed strategic management actions can ameliorate many likely impacts.
3
Information Box A.
Summary of potential approaches to peri-urban kangaroo management
Extract from a display poster used for community kangaroo information days conducted as
part of the community engagement program for the kangaroo management plan
4
1 INTRODUCTION
Coffs Harbour Local Government Area (LGA) (Map 1) is a focal area for important elements of north-
east NSW’s renowned biodiversity. It’s geographic and topographic character, as one of the few
places in eastern Australia where the Great Dividing Range and the associated Great Escarpment
connect to the coastal plain, provide for a wonderful diversity of habitats and associated flora and
fauna (Coffs Harbour City Council 2012); eastern grey kangaroos Macropus giganteus are one
element of this biodiversity.
Coffs Harbour LGA is also an area of rapid human population and tourism growth where there is a
need to provide space, housing and infrastructure for increasing numbers of residents and visitors.
Development pressures that are directly and indirectly associated with human population growth
inevitably impinge on remaining natural areas and biodiversity and kangaroos (see Box 1) are a case
in point.
Lands supporting relatively high kangaroo populations interface residential, caravan park, holiday
park and golf course precincts at a number of urban and peri-urban (see Information Box 1) locations
along the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (Map 1). In these areas residents and visitors experience
encounters with free-ranging kangaroos, often positive but sometimes negative in the form of direct
threats and aggression. Kangaroos in these locations are also sometimes the victims of domestic
dog and human attacks. Associated issues include collisions, and collision avoidance accidents,
involving motor vehicles and kangaroos, diseases in kangaroos that may, or may not, be mediated by
elevated population densities and the ecological impact of high kangaroo numbers on localized and
threatened Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis) grassy headlands within the Moonee Beach Nature
Reserve, and to a lesser extent the Coffs Coast Regional Park. In 2014 management issues
associated with abundant peri-urban kangaroo populations at several locations on the Coffs Coast,
including kangaroo attacks on people, had reached a level whereby a Kangaroo Management Plan
was required.
While it is acknowledged that kangaroo management and their economic impact to farmers and
graziers is an ongoing issue across Australia’s eastern and western rangelands this plan of
management is specifically concerned with populations of the eastern grey kangaroo inhabiting
urban and peri-urban precincts on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches.
Kangaroos are considered protected fauna under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and are
protected across all tenures including private property. As such the NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service (NPWS) has direct jurisdiction regarding the protection and management of kangaroos, and
over the last decade or more has dealt with sporadic incidents of kangaroo attacks and other
perceived kangaroo threats to human safety in urban and peri-urban locations on the wider Mid-
North Coast (e.g. Coffs Coast, Macleay Valley Coast and Port Macquarie district) and in the Northern
Rivers region (e.g. South Grafton). As far as the Coffs Coast region is concerned these kangaroo-
related incidents have occurred mostly on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches but also at Hungry
Head, near Urunga, to the south of Coffs Harbour.
The NPWS has convened a number of informal community and cross-agency forums and undertaken
community education programs concerning kangaroo awareness and safety (e.g. Living with
Kangaroos brochure delivery, Discovery Ranger school programs) to address kangaroo issues on the
5
wider Coffs Coast. However, these programs have been irregular and NPWS has lacked the resources
to undertake strategic management planning relating to urban and peri-urban kangaroo issues. In
concert with the activities of NPWS, the volunteer Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education
Service (WIRES) Mid North Coast Branch, has been caring for and rehabilitating injured kangaroos,
along with other wildlife, in the same locations.
6
Map 1. The Coffs Harbour Local Government Area and the Northern Beaches Kangaroo
Management Plan study area
7
In 2014 WIRES, in co-ordination with NPWS and Coffs Harbour City Council (CHCC), successfully
applied for Council Environment Levy funds to formulate a Kangaroo Management Plan for the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches in the 2015-16 financial year.
It is recognized that WIRES is not the only group dedicated to wildlife rescue in the Coffs Harbour
region; as another key macropod rescue and rehabilitation organization, Wildlife Rescue
Incorporated NSW were also consulted during the formulation of this management plan.
Information Box 1. Defining two terms relevant to the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches Kangaroo Management Plan
This plan has been developed specifically to address issues relating to populations of
kangaroos living within, and in close proximity to, human population centres on the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches. These can be referred to as urban and peri-urban locations.
“Kangaroos”
For the purposes of this management plan use of the term “kangaroo” can be assumed to be
a reference to the eastern grey kangaroo Macropus giganteus. Any specific reference to
other macropod (kangaroo, wallaby, pademelon, potoroo or bettong) species in this plan will
include the use of their full accepted common name (see Table 1 as a reference).
“Peri-urban locations”
This plan deals with kangaroo populations within urban and peri-urban locations on the
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. Peri-urbanization relates to those processes of dispersive
urban growth that create hybrid landscapes of fragmented urban and rural characteristics.
The expression originates from the French word périurbanisation, which is used to describe
spaces—between the city and the countryside—that are shaped by the urbanization of
former rural or natural areas in the urban fringe, both in a qualitative (e.g. diffusion of urban
lifestyle) and in a quantitative (e.g. new residential zones) sense.
Peri-urban areas can be viewed as a landscape type in their own right, one forged from an
interaction of urban and rural land use.
Throughout Australia, and overseas, there has been strong population growth in peri-urban
areas, but in many cases minimal attention has been given to issues of planning, service
delivery, natural resource management and bushfire risk (Buxton et al. 2006).
8
1.1 Kangaroos – Iconic Australians
Kangaroos are iconic Australian marsupials with widespread community recognition and appeal.
They are members of the marsupial Superfamily Macropodoidea, which can collectively be referred
to as macropods, and includes three families: Macropodidae (kangaroos, wallabies, pademelons,
tree-kangaroos and others); Potoroidae (potoroos and bettongs); and Hypsiprymnodontidae (with a
single species, the musky rat-kangaroo, found in north Queensland). Twelve species of macropod
occur on the NSW North Coast (Calaby 1966), nine of these may occur within the Coffs Harbour LGA
and three of these occur locally on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (Scotts 2015): eastern grey
kangaroo, red-necked wallaby and swamp wallaby (Table 1). While the smaller macropod species
have mostly declined in both range and abundance the larger species (e.g. kangaroos) have
increased in abundance, and possibly range, most recently as a result of reduced dingo predation
and the provision of watering points and improved pasture (Maxwell et al. 1996, Calaby and Grigg
1989).
Kangaroos are recognized nationally and internationally as a symbol of Australia and kangaroo
tourism appears to be increasingly popular with domestic and international tourists (e.g.
Higginbottom et al. 2004, Richardson 2012, Figures 1 & 2). Despite this universal recognition and
iconic status many Australians remain largely uninformed of the issues surrounding the management
of kangaroos in different parts of the country. For many urban Australians their experience of
kangaroo management issues is unlikely to extend far beyond the occasional, sometimes
confrontational, observation of kangaroos killed by collision with motor vehicles on regional, rural
and outback roads; for some this issue becomes stark reality if they are unfortunate enough to be
involved in a vehicle collision, or near collision, with these large animals.
The issue of kangaroo – motor vehicle road collisions is a significant one with obvious implications
for animals and humans but it is just one aspect of the complex subject of kangaroo management.
While iconic there are a wide range of views and in some parts of the state they are considered pests
that require management via culling. The management of kangaroo populations is not only complex,
but in many instances it is also controversial with ongoing, sometimes intractable interplay between
social (including ethical), environmental, economic, animal welfare and sometimes cultural
considerations (e.g. Territory and Municipal Services 2010).
Figure 1. Figure 2.
Tourism Australia logo Extract from Coffs Coast tourism brochure
(http://www.coffscoast.com.au/see-and-do/101-things/)
9
Table 1. Broad description of macropod (kangaroo, wallaby & rat-kangaroo) occurrence on the
NSW North Coast, within Coffs Harbour LGA and on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Common Name Scientific Name Status* NSW North Coast broad
occurrence
Coffs Harbour
LGA broad
occurrence
Coffs Coast Northern
Beaches broad occurrence
Long-nosed
Potoroo (small,
rat-kangaroo)
Potorous
tridactylus 1,3
Patchy occurrence within
escarpment and coastal scrub
habitats with suitable cover
Unconfirmed
historical records Unlikely to occur
Rufous Bettong
(small, rat-
kangaroo)
Aepyprymnus
rufescens 3
Rare to relatively common in dry
grassy forests north of Coffs
Harbour
Known
historically but
no recent
records
Does not occur
Red-legged
Pademelon (small,
wallaby-like)
Thylogale
stigmatica 3
Rare to relatively common in
escarpment sub-tropical
rainforests
Known from
escarpment
forests
Does not occur
Red-necked
Pademelon (small,
wallaby-like)
Thylogale thetis 4
Locally common in escarpment
and foothills moist open forests
and rainforests
Known from
escarpment and
midland hills
Unlikely to occur
Brush-tailed Rock-
wallaby
Petrogale
penicillata 1,2
Rare within more remote rocky
escarpment habitats Unlikely to occur Does not occur
Black-striped
Wallaby
Macropus
dorsalis 2
Rare to locally sporadic in
restricted locations in dry open
forests of Clarence Valley
Does not occur Does not occur
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo
Macropus
giganteus 4
Generally uncommon in
forested landscapes but locally
common in rural and rural fringe
locations.
Patchy but
locally common
to abundant
Common to abundant in
patchy, semi-isolated
natural, rural, urban and
peri-urban locations
Parma Wallaby Macropus
parma 3
Uncommon to rare in
escarpment wet forests
Known from
escarpment
forests
Does not occur
Whiptail Wallaby Macropus
parryi 4
Moderately common in dry
grassy forests and woodlands
north of Coffs Harbour
May occur in
northern LGA dry
forests
Does not occur
Common
Wallaroo
Macropus
robustus 4
Moderately common in more
rugged foothills and escarpment
dry open forests
May occur in
drier, more
rugged locations
Does not occur
Red-necked
Wallaby
Macropus
rufogriseus 4
Common in rural hinterland
areas with mosaics of cleared
grasslands / forest remnants
Locally common
Common in near-coastal
rural hinterland; sporadic in
coastal scrubs
Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor 4
Common in most moist forest
foothills and escarpment
habitats
Common in
escarpment and
midland hills
Common in near-coastal
forests; uncommon on
coastal plains
*: 1 Vulnerable Australia (EPBC Act 1999); 2 Endangered NSW (TSC Act 1995); 3 Vulnerable NSW (TSC Act 1995); 4
Protected NSW. Grey shade: Eastern Grey Kangaroo is the subject of this Kangaroo Management Plan
10
1.1.1 The Eastern Grey Kangaroo
The eastern grey kangaroo has a wide and almost continuous distribution between Australia’s inland
plains and the coast, where rainfall is more than 250 millimetres. It inhabits a broad variety of
environments ranging from semi-arid mallee scrub through woodland to forest (Poole 1995). Grey
kangaroos favour habitats in which there is a high level of grass cover, combined with cover from
trees or shrubs to provide shelter (Caughley 1964, Southwell 1987). Ecotones between forest and
farmland or other large grassy areas provide the required combination of food and shelter and are
ideal habitats. They are far less abundant within continuous forests with shrubby or heathy
understories, where grass resources are more limited, and totally cleared farmlands, where shelter is
limited.
It appears that eastern grey kangaroos were abundant in eastern NSW prior to European settlement
and numbers may have increased during the first decades of pastoral expansion (1840 – 1880)
(Barker and Caughley 1992). Since that time overall numbers have probably wavered with some
populations declining in the face of increasingly intensive agriculture, clearing of forests and
sometimes vigorous persecution, while other populations have increased courtesy of improved
water and habitat availability and overall reductions in dingo numbers and predation pressures
(Calaby and Grigg 1989).
Some interesting facts and figures regarding eastern grey kangaroo biology and ecology are
summarised in Information Boxes 2 – 4 on the following pages (extracts from kangaroo extension
material compiled by Barbara Webster and Laura Slade, NPWS Community Engagement).
The management of kangaroo populations, and their impacts on economic interests of farmers and
graziers, has been an ongoing issue across Australia’s eastern and western rangelands for many
decades (e.g. Maxwell et al. 1996, Pople and Grigg 1999). Less relevant to agricultural and pastoral
interests but potentially of direct or indirect concern to many more people is associated with the
growth of urban and peri-urban human population centres and the conflict with kangaroo
populations. This plan of management is specifically concerned with populations of the eastern grey
kangaroo inhabiting urban and peri-urban (see Box 1) precincts on the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches.
11
Information Box 2.
Extract from a display poster used for community kangaroo information days conducted as
part of the community engagement program for the kangaroo management plan
12
Information Box 3.
Extract from a display poster used for community kangaroo information days conducted as
part of the community engagement program for the kangaroo management plan
13
Information Box 4.
Extract from a display poster used for community kangaroo information days conducted as
part of the community engagement program for the kangaroo management plan
14
1.2 Human - Wildlife interactions in urban and peri-urban areas
Throughout Australia, and overseas, there has been strong human population growth in peri-urban
areas as development continues to sprawl into traditionally rural and natural areas. Despite the
advent of overall more strategic approaches to town planning and development planning in recent
times there has generally been minimal attention given to planning for human – wildlife interactions
in these areas. The management of wildlife and wildlife habitats in urban and peri-urban areas is an
expanding field throughout the world, including Australia (e.g. Lunney et al. 2008) with local
communities and citizens demonstrating increasing interest in, concern for, and sometimes fear of
the wildlife they share their living spaces with.
While many animal species are unable to exist within urban and peri-urban areas due to the
unavailability of critical habitat resources others can adapt and persist within the mosaics of
developed and remnant areas (Van der Ree 2004, Coulson et al. 2014). In Australia these include
familiar native animals with more general habitat needs like magpies, brushtail possums and even
bandicoots; they also include introduced pests like black rats, house mice, common mynas and
foxes.
Animal species that persist or flourish in urban and peri-urban areas tend to be smallish in size
(Baker and Harris 2007) but examples of larger species do occur. Well known examples include
white-tailed and black-tailed deer in the USA and Canada (e.g. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2010) and their ecological equivalents in Australia, grey kangaroos (Territory and Municipal
Services 2010, Coulson et al. 2014).
1.2.1 Kangaroos on the Coffs Coast
Three large macropod species are common on the Coffs Coast namely the eastern grey kangaroo
(hereafter referred to by the generic term “kangaroo”), red-necked wallaby and swamp wallaby
(Table 1). The two wallabies do not occur in the same concentrated numbers on the coastal plain as
the kangaroo. This management plan deals specifically with the eastern grey kangaroo but it should
be noted that people may occasionally confuse the identification of these three species.
While many macropod species have declined in the face of European clearing and development (e.g.
Table 1) eastern grey kangaroos have persisted and flourished in many areas. Development of land
for stock grazing, including clearing and promotion of grass cover and the suppression of dingoes,
has directly benefited this species and led to an increase in their numbers. In some areas more
intensive human developments have accidentally resulted in high quality kangaroo habitats. Where
expanses of short, leafy green grasses (available all year-round) close to shady trees, shrubs and
water, and with few or no natural predators, are promoted kangaroo numbers can increase
dramatically (e.g. Jarman and Gray 2000, Coulson 2007, Ballard 2008).
In some parts of the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches relatively large numbers of kangaroos live in
very close proximity to people and, as urban areas grow, more and more people are coming into
contact with these wild, powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals. When kangaroos reach
high numbers in such locations they may pose a risk to their own welfare, impinge on human
activities and have a negative effect on other aspects of the local biodiversity (Adderton-Herbert
2004). In such cases management strategies may be sought to ameliorate the negative effects.
15
Known population centres include the edges of urban and rural-residential areas like Safety Beach
(including the local golf course), Emerald Beach (particularly the headlands of the adjacent Moonee
Beach Nature Reserve), Heritage Park Estate (Moonee Beach), different parts of Woolgoolga (Map
2). It is acknowledged that Hungry Head, to the south of Coffs Harbour LGA is another part of the
Coffs Coast region supporting high kangaroo numbers in a peri-urban setting.
Numbers of kangaroos within these population centres can be relatively high, promoting a feeling,
particularly among some landowners, that they are overabundant (see section 1.2.1). An alternative
viewpoint is that these kangaroo populations appear to be localised and potentially insecure given
that they are associated with human population growth centres. Whilst their habitats are favourable
at present they occur within wider landscapes that are in a state of flux and subject to on-going
changes. The long-term persistence of these kangaroo populations in the face of threats associated
with on-going development pressures and associated major projects (e.g. on-going upgrade of the
Pacific Highway) is not assured and requires long–term monitoring.
The conservation of a free-ranging, sustainable kangaroo population on the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches is one of the main aims of this management plan (see section 2.2).
1.2.2 Human – wildlife interactions
Kangaroos evolved within the ecological constraints imposed by the Australian environment and
their populations were, and still are in some locations, naturally regulated by various mechanisms
such as climate, predation and food availability (e.g. Frith and Calaby 1969, Barker and Caughley
1992). However in many locations, typically where human influence has altered natural ecological
functioning, kangaroos are often considered to be “overabundant” (Territory and Municipal Services
2010) meaning that they are present in numbers that are thought to be well beyond natural levels.
Such populations of kangaroos are progressively becoming a challenge for many communities
around Australia.
The perception of overabundance is a value judgment that is influenced by one’s perspective
regarding the impacts of particular kangaroo populations. Competing considerations can include
economic impacts (generally relating to an agricultural context), animal welfare impacts (on the
kangaroos themselves or on other animals), ecological impacts (relating to other biodiversity), social
impacts (relating to direct impacts on human welfare values) and cultural impacts relating to
traditional and current values attached to kangaroos by Aboriginal people) (Figure 3). Social impacts
are particularly relevant to this review which is concerned with kangaroo populations living within,
or in close proximity to urban or peri-urban residential and recreational centres along the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches.
16
Figure 3. Perceptions of kangaroo overabundance are a value judgment regarding competing
interests
Caughley (1981) described context-specific criteria to characterize animal populations as
overabundant when they (bracketed considerations have been added to place these criteria in
context with Figure 3 in this plan):
• Threaten (or otherwise impact) human life and livelihood (social and economic considerations)
• Are too numerous for their ‘own good’ (animal welfare considerations)
• Depress the densities of economically or aesthetically important species (environmental, cultural
and social considerations)
• Cause ecosystem dysfunction (environmental considerations)
In the ACT Kangaroo Management Plan (Territory and Municipal Services 2010) overabundance is
largely referenced against impacts of high density kangaroo populations on endangered temperate
grassy ecosystems and is usually associated with a management response focused on reducing
numbers of animals occurring in high densities. Adaptive management and education rather than
reducing the number of Kangaroos is the focus of this management plan and as such the term
overabundance is less accurate for this situation. On the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches, where
kangaroo populations exist mostly within highly modified urban and peri-urban locations,
perceptions of kangaroo management issues relate most significantly to social, animal welfare and
economic issues, but also include significant environmental issues (see section 4) as such kangaroo
populations in need of management intervention in a more accurate term for this plan.
17
Map 2. Eastern grey kangaroo occurrence in the Coffs Harbour Local Government Area (and the
Northern Beaches study area) as indicated by the mapping of ‘kangaroo incidents’ logged by
NPWS and WIRES on their macropod data bases over the period 2007-2015.
18
2. BACKGROUND
The Coffs Harbour region has naturally abundant eastern grey kangaroo populations with highly
suitable environmental conditions, expanding peri-urban development and increasing interactions.
In recent times a number of these interactions have been negative and have triggered heightened
community concern and a call to authorities to respond.
The management of kangaroo populations is complex and can also be controversial with sometimes
intractable interplay between the same social, environmental, economic, animal welfare and cultural
interests that have been referred to previously (Figure 4). Broad-based advisory committees,
including community, non-government organization (NGO), agency and academic representatives,
are seen as a good model for facilitating and overseeing the development of a management plan of
this type (e.g. Moriarty 2004, Inwood 2006, Coulson 2007). This co-ordinated approach is considered
the only feasible way to address issues associated with abundant kangaroo populations that occur
across multiple land-use and administrative boundaries (Scotts 2008).
Figure 4. Developing a kangaroo plan of management requires the balancing of sometimes
competing interests
19
2.1 Objectives of the Management Plan
The objective of the kangaroo management plan is to establish a strategic approach to maintaining
wild populations of eastern grey kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches while managing
their social, economic and ecological impacts and ensuring their welfare.
More specific objectives have been identified in an April 2015 CHCC / NPWS scoping paper:
i. Contribute to ensuring the maintenance of a sustainable and healthy eastern grey kangaroo
population in the Northern Beaches of Coffs Harbour.
ii. Better understanding of kangaroo population demographics in the Coffs Harbour kangaroo
population.
iii. Review and identify best practice strategies and tools used in other localities to sustainably
manage kangaroo populations in urban and peri-urban settings.
iv. Reduce the incidence of negative interactions between people and kangaroos.
v. Raise community awareness regarding kangaroo management issues.
vi. Engage and empower the community to live safely with kangaroos and help deal with
kangaroo management issues.
vii. Identify management policies and protocols required to achieve more strategic approaches
to kangaroo management.
viii. Investigate better urban and peri-urban strategic planning in kangaroo areas.
ix. Document project findings in a management plan.
2.2 Methods
The development of this management plan involved a desk-top literature review, analysis of the
NPWS kangaroo incidents database and the WIRES macropod incidents database, an on-line
community survey of attitudes to peri-urban kangaroos (section 8), a systematic seasonal kangaroo
counts at key kangaroo hot spots (section 9) and collaboration with kangaroo researches as
discussed in section 2.1.2.
The plan was overseen by the Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee and pulled together
by a Kangaroo Project Officer jointly paid for by Coffs Harbour City Council and the NSW National
Parks and Wildlife Service.
2.2.1 Collaboration with kangaroo researchers
With the initiation of the kangaroo management plan project the Kangaroo Steering Committee
sought input from UNE kangaroo researcher Associate Professor Karl Vernes who agreed to
participate on the committee and also to facilitate kangaroo research relevant to the kangaroo
management plan. To that end UNE engaged an Honours student, Tim Henderson, to undertake an
applied project of kangaroo and community survey and research on the Coffs Harbour Northern
20
Beaches. The project is titled 'Peri-urban kangaroos: Demographics, movement ecology and their
interactions with humans along the Coffs Coast Northern Beaches’.
The Kangaroo Management Committee agreed to facilitate the Honours project through liaison and
assistance from the Kangaroo Project Officer, David Scotts, provision of logistic and field assistance
from CHCC and NPWS staff and provision of financial assistance from the kangaroo project budget.
This collaborative approach has seen the successful undertaking of applied research including an on-
line community survey of attitudes to peri-urban kangaroos (section 8), systematic seasonal
kangaroo counts at key kangaroo hot spots (section 9) and more recent application of GPS tracking
to study kangaroo movement patterns at Heritage Park (results not available at the time of plan
writing).
This successful collaborative model can form the basis for ongoing applied kangaroo research
relevant to kangaroo management issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (see sections 11 &
12). At the time of writing another research program has been initiated through approved funding
from Coffs Council’s Environment Levy (2016-17), NRMA Holiday Parks (Darlington Beach Holiday
Park) and support from NPWS and CHCC. This project, to be run by Dr Cathy Herbert of the
University of Sydney and titled ‘Kangaroo Fertility Control Management Trials on the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches’, will be applied at three important priority peri-urban kangaroo locations (see
sections 11 & 12 for more details).
Another relevant research study, external to the kangaroo management plan, is being conducted by
UNE researchers. This study is investigating predator-prey-plant trophic cascades and one
component includes kangaroo grazing impacts on vegetation of a series of Coffs Harbour grassy
headlands.
2.3 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee 2015-16
The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee was first convened in May 2015 with the
following objectives (as per an April 2015 CHCC / NPWS scoping paper):
1. Facilitate and oversee the development of a Kangaroo Management Plan for Coffs Harbour’s
Northern Beaches.
2. Facilitate the employment / contract of a kangaroo management project officer to complete
the plan on behalf of the committee.
The committee has met on a number of occasions in this capacity. Members of the Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo Management Committee (KaMC) over the period covering the development of the
Kangaroo management plan (May 2015 – June 2016) have been:
The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee (2015-16)
� Glenn Storrie, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Area Manager Coffs Coast (Convener)
� Lisa Baxter: Chair Mid North Coast WIRES
� Karen Thomson; a Mid North Coast WIRES Macropod Coordinator
21
� Kue Hall; Community Representative
� Dr Stephen Deist, Pacific Vet Care; Local Veterinary Surgeon with active interest in kangaroo
management
� Assoc. Prof. Karl Vernes, School of Environmental & Rural Science, University of New England;
Academic representative with involvement in kangaroo research
� Dr Melissa Giese, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, Team Leader – Wildlife
� Dr Sally Townley, Coffs Harbour City Council, Councillor
� Nigel Cotsell (to February 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council, Biodiversity Team Leader
� Harpreet Jenkins (May 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council, Senior Urban Planner
� Sally Whitelaw (from June 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council, Senior Biodiversity Officer
� Barbara Webster, NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Senior Ranger Community Relations
� Ann Walton (to September 2015), NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Coffs Coast Area
Ranger
� Richard Ghamraoui (September 2015 – June 2016), NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Coffs
Coast Area Ranger
� David Scotts (August 2015 – June 2016), Coffs Harbour City Council / NSW National Parks &
Wildlife Service, Kangaroo Project Officer
2.4 A framework for the management plan
Kangaroo management on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches, as elsewhere, involves the
consideration and integration of a complex mixture of issues and opinions. There are no black and
white answers and adaptive management, informed by ongoing and open community engagement
and education as well as the findings of population monitoring, research and citizen science, will be
required over the long term. This approach is based on the “evidence-based management”
framework followed by Territory and Municipal Services (2010) in formulating the ACT Kangaroo
Management Plan. Figure 5 illustrates an overall framework that incorporates existing evidence and
new evidence pertaining to kangaroos as well as relevant legislation, policies and guidelines within
an adaptive management feedback loop.
23
2.4 Community engagement as a basis for the plan
This management plan has been developed with the understanding that communication is an
essential strategy in managing human – wildlife conflict (Lunney et al. 2008). It engages a sense of
responsibility and allows opinions to be formed based on reliable and testable information. It follows
that wildlife management is as much about education, and managing people’s attitudes, as it is
about the science of populations of animals. Gaining the personal benefits of enjoyment and
confidence in wildlife interactions through enhanced knowledge and skills can influence community
attitudes to be more positive toward wildlife and can reduce the extent to which people perceive
negative experiences (Davies et al. 2004). This may be particularly so in the context of managing
within urban and peri-urban situations where people may come into frequent and close contact with
wild animals. Madden (2004) describes six lessons relevant to the fostering of co-existence between
humans and wildlife (kangaroos in this case):
Lesson 1: Human–Wildlife conflict often involves Human–Human conflict
(People with different goals, attitudes, values, feelings, levels of empowerment, and wealth)
Lesson 2: Biology is part of the solution but not sufficient in itself
(The human dimension, including social, cultural, political, economic, and legal complexities, must
also be understood)
Lesson 3: Perceptions of conflict matter and solutions must address them
Lesson 4: Balancing global insights and local variability
Lesson 5: Successful responses require the use of multiple and adaptive tools
Lesson 6: Demonstrating genuine effort is a valuable first step
(Genuine willingness and effort may be an effective short-term means for reducing conflict as
longer-term measures are tried, tested, and implemented)
These lessons are directly relevant to the community engagement strategy formulated as part of this
Kangaroo Management Plan.
2.4.1 A community and stakeholder engagement strategy
A workshop was convened by members of the NPWS Community Engagement team on 27th
October
2015 to develop a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. It was recognised at the
workshop, which was attended by members of Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Steering Committee, that
there are two stages of community involvement in this project:
a) A rigorous, transparent and inclusive community consultation process in developing the plan,
and;
b) Community engagement and education programs delivered as part of the implementation of the
plan.
24
The strategy covers the first stage to be delivered from November 2015 to June 2016. The format for
the strategy was based on the NPWS Community and Stakeholder Engagement Procedural
Guidelines and was in accordance with Coffs Harbour City Council’s Community Engagement Policy.
The workshop investigated the issues associated with kangaroo management in Coffs Harbour,
developed a list of stakeholders for targeted communication, developed key messages to be
emphasized when engaging on kangaroo issues and provided a basis for an engagement action plan
which provided a framework for the community consultation process.
The objectives and key messages of the kangaroo community engagement strategy are provided in
Information Boxes 5 & 6. A copy of the strategy and engagement action plan can be obtained by
contacting the NPWS Community and Stakeholder Engagement Team at Dorrigo (02 6657 2309).
2.4.2 Existing community engagement regarding kangaroos
The ground-breaking work of Ballard (2005, 2008) provides a benchmark for community
engagement regarding human – kangaroo conflict in peri-urban situations. This work, conducted in
the Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour and Grafton districts of mid-north and north coast NSW, made
use of tailored questionnaires to actively seek feedback from community stakeholders about their
experiences with kangaroos and their preferences for management approaches. Such information
arms authorities with the information to make informed decisions about how to alleviate or mitigate
relevant issues. Ballard’s work formed a basis for the on-line community survey conducted by UNE
Honours student Tim Henderson (see section 8.2), and facilitated by the Kangaroo Management
plan.
In addition the NPWS has an ongoing kangaroo awareness program, run by their Discovery Rangers,
directed at primary school students in known kangaroo hot spots.
25
Information Box 5. Extract from the Community and Stakeholder
Engagement Strategy developed for the Kangaroo Management Plan
Objectives of community engagement
The objectives of engagement were developed by the Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee.
1. To inform the community of the development of the Kangaroo Management Plan and manage expectations from the outset about what the plan will deliver.
2. To consult with the community, especially the residents of kangaroo hotspots, to gain a wider understanding of the issues they are facing, and to develop strategies to manage interactions with kangaroos that meet community expectations.
3. To raise wider community awareness of kangaroo management issues and wider ecological principles of wildlife management, through media and community engagement, to create a well-informed and confident community who can provide useful feedback about the plan.
4. To understand and consider community values, attitudes and concerns around the issue and measure any change:
o To measure community perceptions of the role of kangaroos in the environment, and people’s attitudes and concerns based on previous experiences and interactions.
o To measure any change in these perceptions, attitudes and concerns after management strategies are introduced using follow-up surveys.
5. To gauge the level of community knowledge and collect observations of local kangaroo natural history via community survey, to increase understanding of population dynamics and demographics to help inform the plan.
6. To collaborate with key stakeholders, through the kangaroo management steering committee, in developing options for the management of kangaroos.
7. To consult the wider community about the final Kangaroo Management Plan through a process of public exhibition (min 28 days) seeking feedback and comments on the plan. Ultimately, seek formal adoption of the final plan by Council and provide feedback to community about how their input influenced the final plan.
26
Information Box 6. Extract from the Community and Stakeholder
Engagement Strategy developed for the Kangaroo Management Plan
Key Messages
A points – Main messages
1. A Kangaroo Management Plan is being developed to help people and kangaroos to live safely together in Coffs Harbour.
2. Several government agencies and interested individuals are collaborating to develop the plan as part of a kangaroo management committee.
3. The steering committee is committed to community consultation in the development of the plan and you will have the opportunity to have your say over the next eight months.
4. Kangaroos are an appealing and iconic feature of the Australian bush. As urban areas grow, more people are coming into contact with these wild, powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals.
5. The plan aims to reduce negative interactions between people and kangaroos by empowering people with the knowledge and strategies to live and recreate safely alongside kangaroos.
6. We need to plan now for a future Coffs Harbour that includes a healthy and sustainable population of eastern grey kangaroos coexisting as part of our local community and with the space to live a natural kangaroo life.
7. Kangaroos are valued by the local community as a tangible link to nature, a real way we can connect with wildlife and our natural environment. They are also important to Coffs Harbour as a tourism icon – a marketing image to attract visitors.
8. If you would like to register to participate in consultation on the kangaroo management plan, please email Barbara.Webster@environment.nsw.gov.au or phone 02 6657 5929 and leave your name and phone number.
B points – secondary points, supporting information
9. Co-existence with kangaroos is based on respect and an understanding of kangaroo behavior and ecology, and how our activities impact on kangaroo wellbeing.
10. Kangaroos are part of our local environment and further research in conflict hotspots such as rural-residential areas and open space on the northern beaches, will help develop effective conflict mitigation strategies to assist in keeping these communities safe.
11. The plan will build on existing community engagement activities such as the school education program that teaches children how to behave near kangaroos and to do the ‘Roo Roll’ if a kangaroo displays aggressive behaviour towards them.
12. The University of New England will be conducting community surveys in hotspot areas to learn more about residents’ values, attitudes and concerns in relation to kangaroos, and collecting information about kangaroo population demographics and movements.
13. Of course these issues won’t be solved overnight, but the Kangaroo Management Plan is the first step in gaining agreement and then implementing best-practice management options.
14. NPWS will continue to respond to reports of aggressive kangaroos as they arise using existing response protocols.
15. For more information on how to avoid conflict with kangaroos type ‘living with kangaroos’ into your search engine to find the OEH information page.
27
3. EXISTING KANGAROO INFORMATION FOR COFFS HARBOUR
It is highly likely that populations of eastern grey kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
are greater than at any previous time. The abundance of kangaroos in the area prior to European
settlement was never documented and studies since this time have either not been documented or
have only focused on small areas. Aboriginal burning may have maintained open grassy grazing
habitats on local headlands and in some other locations but the coastal plains would have been
dominated by mosaics of coastal heaths, swamp forests and open forests. It is guessed that
kangaroos would have been present but in relatively dispersed and somewhat lower numbers
regulated by human and dingo predation. With the gradual spread of European land management
and settlement, habitat conditions for kangaroos would have fluctuated; habitats would have been
created across the semi-cleared landscape with the provision of more and more extensive areas of
paddock and grass and reliable sources of water adjacent to cover in remnant forest and scrub
stands. At the same time the regulation of kangaroo numbers by human and dingo predation would
have declined.
Despite the lack of documented reports from the region regarding historical abundance of eastern
grey kangaroos the author of this plan has been a resident on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
on and off since 1993 and has noted anecdotal observations of kangaroo occurrence over that
period. Over that time there have been obvious changes in kangaroo numbers. For example, in the
1990’s kangaroos were rarely sighted on the headlands at Emerald Beach. At that time the grassy
headlands (Damerells and Look At Me Now headlands) were unreserved crown lands allowing
unrestricted walking of domestic dogs on the headlands and adjacent beaches. In 1995 these two
headlands were added to Moonee Beach Nature Reserve meaning that domestic dog access became
illegal and was mostly curtailed. Since that time kangaroo numbers have increased progressively and
a small population of red-necked wallabies has also established.
Today there are abundant kangaroo populations at a number of locations on the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches (section 1.2.2) with documented and anecdotal evidence suggesting that numbers
are still increasing in some locations.
3.1 Kangaroo "incidents" 2007 - 2016
Two key data sets provide information concerning kangaroo incidents across the Coffs Harbour LGA:
The NPWS kangaroo incidents database lists 40 attacks or serious threats by kangaroos on people
across the Coffs Harbour LGA between 2007 and early 2016 and the WIRES macropod incidents
database lists 636 mappable (i.e. with an adequate location description) call-out locations for
kangaroo incidents across Coffs Harbour LGA over the same period; the latter includes animals hit
(injured, killed or orphaned) by motor vehicles and sick or otherwise injured (e.g. dog attack, fence
entanglement) individuals.
Table 2 provides a summary of the combined NPWS and WIRES data sets. Motor vehicle accidents
(MVAs) are the most common kangaroo incidents followed by sick individuals. Kangaroo attacks or
threats on people and dog attacks on kangaroos are less common.
These two datasets have also been combined to generate maps of the spatial extent of kangaroo
incidents across the Coffs harbour LGA. The first map was presented in section 1.2.2 and illustrates
28
that kangaroo incidents are restricted to the Northern Beaches district. Further analysis of these
data, through a “hot spots’ analysis illustrating the density of kangaroo incidents within one
kilometre grid cells across the Northern Beaches highlights the patchy occurrence of incidents and
allows the identification of kangaroo hot spots (e.g. Heritage Park – Avocado Heights, Emerald
Beach, Woolgoolga – Safety Beach and Darlington Beach Holiday Park) (Map 3).
These data sets are interrogated further in discussing specific kangaroo management
issues in section 4.
Table 2. Reported kangaroo incidents 2007 – early 2016; NPWS & WIRES databases.
Incident Type: Count:
All 676
Attack/Threatening Behaviour 40
Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) 371
Sick 183
Dog Attack 45
Other 37
676
3.2 Kangaroo population trends
Analysis of the kangaroo incidents databases confirms anecdotal impressions that kangaroo
populations have increased, and continue to increase, at some locations across the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches. This is tempered by impressions conveyed by locals (see section 8) in some
locations of stable populations or even reductions over the last few years (e.g. Safety Beach /
Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club).
One location where kangaroos do appear to have increased is Heritage Park where the NPWS has
been counting kangaroos since 2007 using a vehicle transect method. Results to mid-2015 indicate
that the population there has increased over that period (Figure 6).
The number of injured kangaroos reported to WIRES on the mid-north coast of NSW has been
increasing in recent years (Figure 7), mirroring the NPWS population counts.
The reasons for increases in kangaroo populations in peri-urban Northern Beaches locations remain
unquantified but are presumed to relate to combinations of factors such as:
• Presence of an existing kangaroo population, or movement access for an adjacent kangaroo
population, prior to land use changes and associated urban developments;
• Progressive provision of favoured habitats (productive grassy expanses with abundant nearby
shelter and water resources) within large lot residential areas (e.g. Heritage Park, Avocado
Heights), other residential areas with accessible grassy gardens and road verges (e.g. Safety
Beach, Woolgoolga), playing fields and golf courses (e.g. Woolgoolga) and holiday parks (e.g.
Darlington Beach, Lorikeet Park);
29
Map 3. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 676 kangaroo incidents (attacks,
threats, motor vehicle victims, injured and sick individuals) across the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on NPWS and WIRES databases.
HERITAGE PARK/
AVOCADO HEIGHTS
30
• Formal NPWS reservation of grassy headlands at Emerald Beach and the associated removal of
domestic dogs, as kangaroo deterrents (Look At Me Now and Damerells headlands).
Whether current kangaroo populations will be sustained over the long term in the face of
development in-filling, property and highway fencing, imposition of various movement barriers and
other habitat impacts remains to be seen but corrections can be expected. Long term population
monitoring is important in that context.
Figure 6. Results of NPWS kangaroo vehicle transect counts at “Heritage Park” (now part of
Moonee Beach) between 2007 and 2015.
Figure 7. Number of kangaroo-related calls to WIRES across the broader mid-north coast region
between 2011 and 2015.
31
3.3 Kangaroo movement trends
Understanding the movement patterns of kangaroos is important to the development of
management strategies. Through the work undertaken by Tim Henderson as part of his Honours
thesis it became clear that Heritage Park had higher levels of kangaroo and human interactions and
as such it was selected for additional work relating to kangaroo movement trends.
As detailed in Tim Henderson’s Honours thesis, GPS collars and GPS telemetry backpacks were used
to monitor the movement patterns of 14 male kangaroos at Heritage Park between June and
September 2016. Four GPS collars were used to record 63 days of movement data each, while an
additional 13 GPS backpacks recorded between 1 and 12 days’ worth of movement data. Results
showed that the tracked kangaroos mainly resided within the Heritage Park residential area but
occupied only small sections of the estate. The male kangaroos had an average home range size of
34 hectares with their ‘core area’ covering an average size of 6 hectares (Figure 8). This average
range size is approximately half of what has been recorded in kangaroo populations in more natural
areas. The tracked kangaroos used on average 4.6 properties a day and an average of 15 properties
per tracking period, with one individual using a total of 34 properties. Kangaroo also appeared to be
closer to houses from late afternoon to early morning, increasing their distance away during the day.
This indicates potential critical periods for when people are more likely to encounter kangaroos,
such as returning from work or school, or undertaking work around the home. Kangaroos
movement rates was also consistent over a 24 hour period, with small peaks in movement in the
morning and afternoon.
Figure 8. Movement patterns of 14 male kangaroos, showing outer home range and inner core
areas
32
4. KANGAROO MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Every kangaroo population is different and a tailored management plan should begin by identifying
the kangaroo-related problems that are occurring, or could be expected to occur, at the locations
being managed (Coulson 2007). The management context determines the relative importance given
to the types of potential problems; for example NPWS managers would tend to place greatest
emphasis on any loss of biodiversity, primary producers would focus on impacts to their livelihood,
managers of recreation reserves and golf courses would seek to ensure the safety of visitors and
those concerned with animal welfare would be most concerned about the health of the kangaroos
themselves (Coulson 2007).
In this section kangaroo-related issues are listed and discussed within the context of their effects on
social, economic, environmental, urban planning, animal welfare and cultural values relevant to the
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. Table 3 lists the issues and provides an index of the dimension and
scale of their threat or impact in a Coffs Harbour context, however it must be remembered that this
assessment is largely subjective. In considering each of these issues the context-specific criteria,
described by Caughley (1981) to assess animal populations as in need of management intervention
(section 1.2.1), are assessed. . Many of these issues are discussed further in relation to community
engagement and people’s attitudes to kangaroos (section 8), scale of influence within identified
Kangaroo Management Units (section 10) and management approaches and actions associated with
the issues (sections 11 & 12).
4.1 Negative issues
Negative kangaroo issues include those that impact on human safety and economics, kangaroo
welfare and kangaroo populations (Table 3). Environmental issues may also be negative but are
considered with planning issues in section 4.3.
4.1.1 Kangaroo attacks and threats on people
The issue of kangaroo attacks on people in peri-urban Coffs Harbour was a main driver in the
initiation of this management plan. Kangaroo attacks and threats on people are infrequent but
locally significant. Kangaroos are powerful animals, particularly large males, and their claws and feet
are capable of inflicting severe injuries. People who have been subject of a kangaroo attack, or
witnessed an attack, can suffer physical and psychological trauma as a result. Kangaroo behaviours
that could lead to the harming of people include aggressive postures or approaches towards people
or their dogs, kangaroos chasing people or their dogs or kangaroos actively seeking people’s food at
homes, picnic areas and camp sites.
As referred to in section 3.1 the NPWS kangaroo incidents database lists 40 attacks or threats by
kangaroos on people across the Coffs Harbour LGA between 2007 and early 2016. This figure is likely
to under-represent actual attacks and threats as many go unreported (e.g. personal communication
with Dion Cobcroft, Manager Darlington Beach Holiday Park). Figure 9 & Map 4 illustrate the patchy
occurrence of these incidents and their prevalence at certain locations. The Heritage Park - Avocado
Heights precinct (now part of Moonee Beach) is prominent but Emerald Beach, parts of Woolgoolga,
Safety Beach and Darlington Beach Holiday Park are also identified.
33
Table 3. Kangaroo management issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches.
ISSUES
THREAT /
IMPACT
DIMENSION *
SCALE OF IMPACT
NEGATIVE ISSUES
Kangaroo attacks / threats on people HS
Overall Low /
Locally significant
People and domestic dog attacks on
kangaroos KW Moderate
Kangaroo-vehicle collisions and collision
avoidance accidents
HS / HE/
KW / KP High
Kangaroo sickness & diseases (including
potential transfer to humans)
HS
KW / KP
Moderate / sampling
occurring / research needed
Garden & landscaping damage HS / HE Low – to locally significant
Impacts on crops & stock HE Insignificant to Low
POSITIVE ISSUES
Positive living with kangaroos & nature HS
Varies with attitude to /
experience of kangaroos
Aboriginal significance of kangaroos HS
Overall low but probably
locally significant
Eco-tourism potential (e.g. golf courses,
headlands) HE Currently Low but growing
ENVIRONMENTAL & PLANNING ISSUES
“Over-grazing” of threatened grassy
headlands E Locally Moderate - High
Kangaroo habitat loss & population
fragmentation KP
Moderate - High; research
needed
Wild dog/dingo & fox predation on
kangaroos KW / KP Low - localised
Council development planning & open
space management KP Locally High
34
*HS: Impacts human social values; HE: Impacts human economic values; KW: Impacts kangaroo
welfare; KP: Impacts kangaroo populations; E: Impacts environmental values
Figure 9. Relative occurrence of kangaroo attacks or threats at 8 locations across the Coffs Coast as
logged on the NPWS kangaroo incidents database 2007 – early 2016
In light of the documented prevalence of attacks or threats by kangaroos at Heritage Park, Avocado
Heights and Darlington Beach Holiday Park this management plan considers kangaroos to be in need
of management intervention in these locations due to their negative impacts on human social values
(also see Table 6 in section 10).
Based on data from the NPWS kangaroo incidents database, aggressive kangaroos are generally sub-
adult or adult individuals but can be of either sex. Females, particularly those supporting a “young at
foot”, can be just as aggressive as large males. As such removing large adult males, which is
sometimes discussed as a management action, may not result in any reduction in kangaroo attacks
or threats. A NSW government protocol (see section 5) provides a framework for OEH Parks and
Wildlife Group officers to use when responding to requests from the community to assist with
managing interactions with aggressive kangaroos (see section 5.2.1). This protocol includes the
provision for NPWS to issue a licence to euthanise individual aggressive kangaroos posing a risk to
public safety once non-lethal measures to manage negative impacts have proven unfeasible.
The timing of logged kangaroo attacks and threats on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches indicates
that they are spread across the year with little or no seasonal pattern.
Drivers of kangaroo aggression include (Territory and Municipal Services 2010):
• Alteration or change to the natural habitat and feeding patterns of kangaroos (including hand
feeding and kangaroo feeding in human modified areas close to where people live, exercise or
walk dogs);
• Unrestrained dogs that harass kangaroos (also see section 4.1.2), resulting in a defensive
response by male kangaroos or by female kangaroos where a dog gets between the female and
its young;
35
• Aggressive poses towards kangaroos or moving between a female and her young;
• Approaching male kangaroos involved in courtship/mating behaviour (males sniffing, touching or
courting females), dominance behaviour (sparring, showing off size and strength), or kangaroos
making growling or clucking noises;
• The feeding or hand-rearing and release of kangaroos which results in the loss of their instinctive
fear of humans and may lead to aggression in seeking out food and may be particularly
threatening to children.
It has also been speculated that certain diseases in kangaroos, especially those impacting brain
function, could be linked to elevated aggression but this remains to be tested (Dr Stephen Deist,
Veterinarian, personal communication) (see section 4.1.4).
In addition to the NPWS / OEH protocol for dealing with aggressive kangaroos this plan promotes
ongoing community education and strategic fencing as priority actions for dealing with this issue;
sections 11 & 12 expand upon these management approaches and actions but an example of the
effective use of fencing to deal with unwanted kangaroo incursions has been implemented at St
Francis Xavier Primary School in Woolgoolga. This fencing project was facilitated by David Redman,
NPWS Ranger- see Appendix 1.
4.1.2 People and domestic dog attacks on kangaroos
Instances of human and domestic dog attacks on kangaroos are moderately frequent and have
obvious kangaroo welfare implications including injury and often death. Examples of human attacks
on kangaroos that have been reported to authorities in peri-urban Coffs Harbour include deliberate
use of a motor vehicle to run kangaroos down, deliberate persecution (e.g. throwing rocks or other
objects), kicking or punching approachable kangaroos and un-licensed shooting (e.g. bow and arrow,
crossbow, firearms).
Domestic dog attacks on kangaroos often occur when dogs are not under human supervision and are
left to roam freely, but occasionally dogs are deliberately sent to harass, or even hunt, kangaroos by
people. It is an offence under the Companion Animals Act (1998) to allow a dog to harass kangaroos
and other wildlife and a person is guilty of unlawful use of dogs if they negligently fail to prevent a
dog under the person’s control from pursuing or injuring kangaroos. Unlawful use of dogs is a
misdemeanour and a dog that is the basis for such a violation may be declared a public nuisance.
Harassment of kangaroos by dogs can occur anywhere and most incidents go unreported as they
may not lead directly to injury or death. It should be noted however that the stress of being chased
by dogs may also have physiological impacts on kangaroos. Some kangaroos, especially large males,
will defend themselves, their offspring or their mates against dogs that harass them. In such
instances, a kangaroo may injure the dog or a person trying to intervene. Mapped hot spots for
reported dog attacks (due to injury leading to a WIRES call out) on kangaroos include Heritage Park,
Avocado Heights, Emerald Beach, parts of Woolgoolga, Safety Beach (Woolgoolga Diggers Golf
course) and Darlington Beach Holiday Park (Map 5).
Community education, and the promotion of responsible dog ownership in relation to kangaroos, is
an important management action (see sections 11 & 12).
36
Map 4. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 40 kangaroo attacks or threats on
people across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on the
NPWS kangaroo incidents database.
37
Map 5. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 45 dog attacks on kangaroos
across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on the WIRES
macropod incidents database.
38
4.1.3 Kangaroo-vehicle collisions and collision avoidance accidents
Vehicle collisions with kangaroos are a significant issue impacting all peri-urban locations associated
with kangaroo populations (e.g. Coulson 2007, Territory and Municipal Service 2010, Coulson et al.
2014). Motor vehicle accidents are by far the single most common cause of WIRES kangaroo call outs
on the mid-north coast (See Table 2 in section 3.1).
Impacts associated with this issue flow to human social and economic values as well as kangaroo
welfare values. Humans may be injured, or even killed, when their vehicle (including cars, motor
bikes and even push bikes) collides with a kangaroo or when they crash in attempting to avoid
colliding with a kangaroo. Resultant vehicle damage often requires expensive repairs. Collision with
motor vehicles, is the main source of mortality for kangaroos on the Coffs Coast and elsewhere in
urban and peri-urban situations (e.g. Coulson 2007, Herbert 2015).
The A.C.T. Kangaroo Advisory Committee (1997) identified contributing factors to vehicle-kangaroo
accidents in that jurisdiction, a number of which are relevant to the Coffs area; many of these are
relevant to the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches:
• adjacent open space supporting a resident kangaroo population;
• excessive kangaroo numbers contributing to elevated movement;
• roads bisecting natural movement corridors;
• attractive roadside grazing, often enhanced by drainage, irrigation, and mowing;
• excessive speed/high speed roads;
• driver inattention;
• frequent and regular traffic;
• driver ignorance of potential risk at "hot spots";
• the funnelling effect of some roads, especially major roads with central concrete and vegetation
barriers;
• inclement seasonal conditions forcing kangaroos to move further for food and water, often on a
daily basis; and
• Moon phase.
Many of the kangaroo-vehicle incidents logged on the WIRES macropod database were associated
with the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches section of the Pacific Highway prior to its upgrade to dual
carriageway and the installation of wildlife exclusion fencing and highway underpasses (see Map 6).
Kangaroo-vehicle collisions still occur on this upgraded highway section as gaps remain in the
exclusion fencing, mostly due to logistic or structural constraints (Roads and Maritime Service
personal communication). Elsewhere in north-eastern NSW highway fencing has resulted in reduced
road deaths (e.g. Hayes and Goldingay 2009). Never the less kangaroo-vehicle collisions and collision
avoidance accidents remain a significant issue on local peri-urban (non-highway) streets.
Motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos are relatively common at a number of locations on the
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches but particularly on the (non-highway) streets of Heritage Park,
Woolgoolga and Safety Beach (Map 6). In light of this it is considered that kangaroos are in need of
management intervention at these locations due to their potential negative impacts on human social
values and due also to animal welfare considerations (also see Table 6 in section 10).
39
Kangaroo-vehicle collisions remain an intractable problem as no technique has proved effective in
significantly reducing their frequency. The ACT Kangaroo Plan (Territory and Municipal Services
2010) outlines three main categories of mitigation techniques: modifying road attributes; modifying
animal behaviour; and modifying driver behaviour through education programs. Mitigation methods
can be expensive (e.g. fencing), of doubtful efficacy (e.g. wildlife reflectors), difficult to retrofit (e.g.
road underpasses) or not favoured by motorists (e.g. lowering speed limits). Management
approaches and actions flowing from consideration of this issue are discussed in sections 11 & 12
and the benefit of highway underpasses in preventing kangaroo population fragmentation on the
Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches is discussed further in section 4.3.2.
4.1.4 Kangaroo sickness and diseases
As is the case for all animals, kangaroos are susceptible to many diseases including those caused by
bacteria (e.g. lumpy jaw), viruses, rickettsia, fungi, protozoa (e.g. toxoplasmosis, coccidiosis) and
metazoan parasites (e.g. hook worm. liver flukes, ticks) as well as toxic diseases (e.g. poisoning),
metabolic diseases (e.g. heat, cold and drought stress induced) and neoplastic diseases (e.g. skin
cancers) (see review by Speare et al. 1989). At least some of these diseases may become more
prevalent when kangaroos are present in high densities or when food resources become
compromised (Coulson 2007).
Seasonal and ‘population crash’ epidemics involving peri-urban kangaroos are periodically reported
at many locations along Australia’s east coast, including the Coffs Harbour region. Over-population,
under-nutrition, cold stress and parasitic burden all appear to be implicated (e.g. DPI Biosecurity
Bulletin, Sept 2015). A recent population crash at Morisset Hospital grounds resulted in the death of
150 kangaroos over a short period of time. Necropsies have been carried out on many of these dead
kangaroos by ARWH researchers and the animals appear to have been afflicted with the disease
Babesiosis, caused by a blood-borne parasite spread by ticks.
Impacts associated with kangaroo sickness and diseases flow obviously to kangaroo welfare and
kangaroo population values but also to human social values. There is a small chance that humans
can contract certain diseases carried by kangaroos. For example, the contamination of water
supplies by pathogens within kangaroo faeces, particularly the protozoan Cryptospiridium, can cause
gastro-intestinal disease in humans. Hydatid disease can be caught by humans from dogs that have
eaten the raw meat or offal of infected kangaroos. A parasite called Toxoplasma gondii, which
causes the disease Toxoplasmosis, may be present in infected kangaroo meat. Ingestion of meat that
has not been cooked sufficiently may be a method of disease transmission. Eating kangaroo meat
not purchased as part of the commercial kangaroo meat industry is also illegal. The likelihood of a
human resident or visitor on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches eating a local kangaroo is probably
low but education regarding disease risk is still needed (see sections 11 & 12). In some Northern
Beaches locations however densities of kangaroo scats on lawns and other grassy open spaces can
be very high leading to at least some potential for transfer of diseases from kangaroos to people or
for contagion among high density kangaroo sub-populations.
Coulson (2007) suggests that kangaroos living within overabundant populations are likely to
demonstrate symptoms of physical degradation. However, Allen (2008) suggests that kangaroos at
Anglesea (Victoria), while living at densities that might be considered abnormally high, showed no
physical evidence to suggest that they were overabundant. It may be that the Anglesea area is
40
capable of supporting a large kangaroo population over the long term. The relatively common
occurrence of sick and diseased kangaroos at Heritage Park, Avocado Heights and, to a lesser extent,
Safety Beach (Map 7) may indicate an alternative scenario on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
however this has not been studied. In light of the documented prevalence of these incidents at
Heritage Park in particular this management plan considers kangaroos to be in need of management
intervention at this location due to their potential negative impacts on human social values and due
to animal welfare considerations including the possibility that their high densities may be facilitating
certain transmissible diseases and at least seasonal physical degradation (Coulson 2007); i.e. in the
absence of any natural predation impacts kangaroos may have become too numerous for their ‘own
good’ at this location (also see Table 6 in section 10). Further research is needed to clarify this
situation.
There has been speculation relating to a potential link between diseases that impact brain function
and aggression in kangaroos. The association could conceivably relate to direct impacts of disease on
brain function or indirect impacts through feelings of distress in sick animals leading to inclinations
of self-protection and aggression (Dr Lynda Stycker personal communication with Dr Stephen Deist).
Ongoing analysis of tissue and blood samples, particularly from known aggressive animals that are to
be euthanized under an NPWS licence, together with complete post mortem of these animals, will
shed more light on this issue but at this stage no link has been established. The ARWH’s Macropod
Autopsy protocol is attached as Appendix 2. Diseases impacting brain function (e.g. Toxoplasmosis
and Babesiosis) are present in Coffs Harbour’s kangaroo populations but to date no correlation
between these diseases and aggression has been quantified (Dr Stephen Deist personal
communication).
Actions flowing from consideration of the issue of kangaroo sickness and diseases are discussed in
sections 11 & 12.
41
Map 6. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 371 motor vehicle accidents
involving kangaroos across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as
logged on the WIRES macropod incidents database.
42
Map 7. Spatial occurrence and 1 kilometre grid cell hot spots for 183 records of sick (and injured)
kangaroos across the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches between 2007 and early 2016 as logged on
the WIRES macropod incidents database.
43
4.1.5 Garden and landscaping damage
Eastern grey kangaroos are predominantly grazers, feeding on grasses rather than shrubs
(references in Schmidt et al. 2010), however Coffs Harbour gardeners report kangaroos grazing on
garden shrubs occasionally, particularly during times of drought when grass availability and
palatability maybe low. Other aspects of damage caused by kangaroos in this context include
trampling of garden plants and the prevalence of kangaroo faeces on people’s lawns and grassy
open spaces (see section 4.1.4 regarding kangaroo diseases). The issue of abundant kangaroos
causing damage to people’s gardens or landscape plantings in peri-urban locations, while probably
of lower priority overall, can be significant at a local scale. Clearly people vary in their perspective
relating to the presence and impacts of kangaroos in their gardens; some people actively encourage
kangaroos to enter their properties while others rue any damage kangaroos may cause by trampling
or browsing favoured garden plants and garden structures. This issue has human social and
economic impacts when people feel that their property is being impacted in this way.
Strategic kangaroo fencing, olfactory repellents and kangaroo-unfriendly plantings (e.g. sedges and
pungent or otherwise unpalatable shrubs as opposed to extensive lawns) are potential approaches
to managing this issue. These are discussed further in considering management approaches and
actions in sections 11 & 12.
4.1.6 Impacts on crops and stock
Management of kangaroo populations is a significant and contentious issue across much of rural
Australia where kangaroos are considered to be competing with stock, impacting water availability
through competition, or causing significant damage to cereal crops and fences. This is an issue of
very limited significance on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches as kangaroo numbers are generally
very low within agricultural and horticultural growing areas. If it has any significance then that may
relate to some minor impacts of kangaroos on blueberry growing enterprises west of Sandy Beach
and Woolgoolga and near Moonee Beach where kangaroos may occasionally find themselves within
production areas. Given that there are limited foraging resources available to kangaroos within
blueberry growing areas this is considered a very minor occurrence.
4.2 Positive issues
Positive kangaroo issues relate largely to human social values and the way people perceive the
kangaroos that they share their living and recreational places with (Table 3); some human economic
values associated with eco-tourism ventures may also be relevant here.
4.2.1 Positive living with kangaroos and nature
Previous community survey work concerning people’s attitudes towards kangaroos in peri-urban
locations of north-eastern NSW was undertaken by Ballard (2008). This work highlights the fact that
the majority of people who live with kangaroos feel positive about it and enjoy their kangaroo
interactions. Many describe feelings of well-being attributed to their ideas of living with nature in
these locations. These feelings of well-being were also demonstrated in the Healthy Parks Healthy
People program initiated by Parks Victoria in 2000. Such feelings can be promoted through
education programs that equip people with the knowledge and techniques to live with kangaroos in
44
the safest possible manner. The NPWS has ongoing programs aimed at facilitating safe human –
kangaroo interactions and this plan promotes actions to enhance that approach in sections 11 & 12.
4.2.2 Aboriginal significance of kangaroos
Kangaroos, and other macropods, are known to be highly significant to Aboriginal people in many
parts of Australia (e.g. Thomsen et al. 2006) including locations to the immediate north and south of
Coffs Harbour.
Bones collected from the Arrawarra middens, at Arrawarra Headland, suggest that kangaroos were
hunted and consumed along with other land animals including wallabies, echidna and goanna. It is
unclear if local Aboriginal people attribute more significance to kangaroos than other large prey
animals but they were clearly an important resource in many areas.
4.2.3 Eco-tourism potential
To international visitors kangaroos and koalas are iconic Australian images. Recent figures illustrate
this with about 18 per cent of all international tourists attracted to Australia stating a primary
interest in our wildlife (Richardson 2012). This translates into significant economic value and
potential as part of broader nature-based tourism initiatives. Tourism is a potential management
option for Australia’s kangaroos, and its potential deserves further investigation (Higginbottam et al.
2004).
The appeal of observing wild kangaroos at close quarters within accessible coastal environments
including headlands, golf courses and even residential areas (see cover photographs) is likely to be
high for international and domestic tourists and travellers. Kangaroo viewing is being promoted as a
wildlife encounter within current “Coffs Coast” tourism marketing brochures (Figure 2) but, as
stressed by Territory and Municipal services (2010) in the ACT Kangaroo Plan, there are many issues
that need to be considered before developing and promoting kangaroo viewing as a major tourist
attraction. Prominent among these include human safety and animal welfare issues. Market
research would be valuable to determine the demand for kangaroo tourism.
4.3 Environmental and planning issues
Environmental and planning issues include those that impact directly on environmental values,
kangaroo welfare and kangaroo populations (Table 3). Impacts on kangaroo populations would also
have indirect impacts on human social and economic values but these are dealt with in relation to
specific issues elsewhere in this section.
4.3.1 "Over-grazing" of threatened grassy headlands
In some locations kangaroos may impact vegetation, including threatened plant species, through
direct consumption or even trampling. In the ACT, where abundant kangaroo populations place
heavy grazing pressures on certain threatened grassland and grassy woodland communities, this is
considered a major kangaroo management issue (Territory and Municipal Services 2010). In the
Coffs Harbour context kangaroo grazing has the potential to impact an Endangered Ecological
Community (Kangaroo Grass Themeda australis headland community) within Moonee Beach Nature
Reserve and Coffs Coast Regional Park. The threatened plants, headland zieria Zieria prostrata,
45
austral toadflax Thesium australe and coastal headland pea Pultanaea maritima are also part of this
community and may be susceptible to kangaroo browsing and trampling. At the very least recent
preliminary vegetation sampling and analysis indicate that grazing influences floristic composition
and structure within these grassy headland communities (Hunter and Hunter in prep).
Grassy ecosystems provide habitat for an extensive array of plant and animal species, the latter
including mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and invertebrates. The composition of grassy headland
communities in the Coffs Harbour region has not been well studied and the extent to which
abundant kangaroos may impact these communities is at present based upon visual observations of
kangaroo grazing impacts including sparse vegetative cover, exposed soil and obvious differences in
grass swards between headlands supporting abundant kangaroos and those supporting fewer or no
kangaroos (author’s observations and Mark Watt, NPWS Ranger personal communication), however
quantitative investigations are underway.
The impacts of kangaroo grazing within threatened grassy headland communities on Look At Me
Now (figure 10) and Damerells headlands (Map 15) are considered detrimental to significant
biodiversity values. This indicates that kangaroos are in need of management intervention at this
location and population control is warranted. See sections 11 & 12 for management approaches and
actions extending from this.
Figure 10. A kangaroo grazing in front of an exclusion plot on Look At Me Now Headland, Emerald
Beach; part of a research program including investigations of kangaroo over-grazing on grassy
headlands.
46
4.3.2 Kangaroo habitat loss and population fragmentation
The Coffs Harbour LGA is subject of on-going pressures associated with its status as a human
population growth centre. Expanding human populations mean diminishing natural habitats with
consequences even for the most resilient of native fauna species like kangaroos.
The influence of drought and fire on the long term dynamics of kangaroo populations associated
with peri-urban Coffs Harbour can only be speculated upon. One aspect for consideration is that
severe drought may result in the influx of kangaroos from drier areas (if habitat connections allow it)
in response to the greater reliability of food and water supplies in peri-urban habitats. Under such a
scenario elevated numbers of kangaroos could exacerbate human – kangaroo issues.
Kangaroo populations are always susceptible to fires, be they planned for the purpose of reducing
fuels or wildfires. The impacts of fires on kangaroos and other biodiversity vary according to the
fire’s intensity and extent. Impacts also vary according to the characteristics of the landscape
through which they burn. Within fragmented landscapes and habitat remnants, typical of the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches, it is possible for habitat patches to be entirely burnt by severe fires with
potentially significant consequences for resident kangaroo populations. The effects climate change is
again a complicating factor here.
An important consequence of habitat loss and development of human infrastructure is the
imposition of barriers to kangaroo movements (e.g. urban, industrial and horticultural areas devoid
of grass, an upgraded Pacific Highway with associated wildlife exclusion fencing and insufficient or
inadequate underpasses) leading to population fragmentation. If kangaroo sub-populations become
isolated to the extent that dispersal of breeding animals is curtailed then there may be genetic
consequences over the long term (e.g. inbreeding) and lowered sub-population sustainability
(Eldridge et al. 2010).
4.3.3 Wild dog / Dingo and fox predation on kangaroos
Predation, by humans and dingoes, is considered to have been an important kangaroo population
control historically.
While dingo numbers and dingo predation on kangaroos is likely to have declined, wild dogs and
foxes do have the potential to exert predation pressures on Coffs Harbour’s kangaroo populations.
Foxes and dogs are known to limit kangaroo recruitment elsewhere by predating juveniles (young at
foot) (Banks et al. 2000, Herbert 2015) but their impact on peri-urban Coffs Harbour kangaroos is
unclear at this stage. The ability of dogs to move over large distances up and down the Coffs Coast,
as revealed by a Department of Primary Industries dog GPS-tracking program (Guy Ballard personal
communication,) highlights their potential to predate kangaroos across the Northern Beaches study
area. While dog, dingo and fox predation on peri-urban kangaroos may impact animal welfare values
as they apply to individual kangaroos it seems likely that their impact on kangaroo populations
would be somewhat localized.
4.3.4 Council development planning and open space management
Urban and peri-urban planning undertaken without the consideration of kangaroo management
issues has the potential to favour kangaroo population growth, sometimes leading to kangaroo
47
populations in need of management intervention and associated human – kangaroo conflict.
Similarly, uninformed management of community open spaces including sports playing fields and
parklands can also enhance kangaroo habitats. The promotion of productive grassy forage in
association with shelter, water and an existing kangaroo population can contribute to elevated
kangaroo numbers.
If kangaroo management issues are deemed significant and urban planning and development can
potentially exacerbate these issues then it falls to strategic planners to account for them in
undertaking strategic planning and in directing or regulating approaches to urban development and
open space management.
Emerging kangaroo hot spots are discussed within the context of future urban growth across the
Coffs Harbour LGA in sections dealing with Kangaroo Management Units (section 10). Management
approaches and actions flowing from consideration of the issue of Council development planning
and open space management are discussed in sections 11 and 12.
48
5 STATUTORY, POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT
The Kangaroo Management Plan is intended to be consistent with relevant State and local
legislation, policies, plans and guidelines.
5.1 NSW Legislation
At the time of writing several pieces of NSW environmental legislation were under review with the
passage of the Biodiversity Conservation Act. The legislation discussed in this section is current as at
the time of writing.
5.1.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
All native birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals (except the dingo) are protected throughout
NSW under this Act. A small number of bird species, regarded as serious agricultural or pastoral
pests, are not protected in certain parts of NSW.
As protected fauna kangaroos may only be harmed in accordance with the authority of a licence
under this Act. A licence to harm kangaroos, usually by firearms, is a last resort in the absence of
practical, cost effective non-lethal management solutions.
5.1.2 Companion Animals Act 1998
This Act aims to provide for the effective and responsible management of companion animals
including domestic dogs which are often observed harassing kangaroos. It is an offence under this
Act to allow a dog to harass kangaroos. Section 6A(1) of the Act requires councils to promote
awareness of the requirements of the Act with respect to the ownership of animals. To satisfy that
requirement Coffs Harbour Council adopted a Companion Animals Management Plan in August 2000
(see 3.3.5).
5.1.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land-use planning and development in NSW is governed by the EP&A Act. This Act provides a
number of mechanisms for the assessment of environmental impacts of developments and other
works. Three objectives of the Act relate to kangaroo management:
(i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources,
including agricultural land, natural areas, forest, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the
purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better
environment
(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals
and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their
habitats
(vii) ecologically sustainable development
49
5.1.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
The Eastern Grey Kangaroo is not listed as a threatened species under the TSC Act however the Act is
relevant to this management plan due to the impact that kangaroos may be having on an
Endangered Ecological Community, Themeda grassland on seacliffs and coastal headlands, within
Moonee Beach Nature Reserve (see also Moonee Beach Nature Reserve Plan of Management
(3.2.4).
5.1.5 Native Vegetation Act 2003
This Act is intended to regulate the clearing of native vegetation on rural lands across the Coffs
Harbour LGA. Kangaroo management issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches generally fall
outside of rural lands but there may be instances where the Act will be relevant.
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for, encourage and promote the management of native vegetation on a regional basis in
the social, economic and environmental interests of the State, and
(b) to prevent broadscale clearing unless it improves or maintains environmental outcomes, and
(c) to protect native vegetation of high conservation value having regard to its contribution to such
matters as water quality, biodiversity, or the prevention of salinity or land degradation, and
(d) to improve the condition of existing native vegetation, particularly where it has high conservation
value, and
(e) to encourage the revegetation of land, and the rehabilitation of land, with appropriate native
vegetation,
in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
5.1.6 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979
In NSW, the principal animal welfare provisions are found in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
1979.
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to prevent cruelty to animals, and
(b) to promote the welfare of animals by requiring a person in charge of an animal:
(i) to provide care for the animal, and
(ii) to treat the animal in a humane manner, and
(iii) to ensure the welfare of the animal.
Section 5(1) makes it an offence to commit an act of cruelty upon an animal while section 6(1) of the
Act further provides that a person shall not commit an act of aggravated cruelty upon an animal.
50
5.2 NSW policies, guidelines and plans relevant to urban and peri-urban
kangaroo management
5.2.1 NPWS Policy & Procedures for Managing Kangaroos that Pose a Risk to Public
Safety
This document provides a framework for OEH Parks and Wildlife Group officers to use when
responding to requests from the community to assist with managing interactions with kangaroos
that pose a risk to public safety. The policy and procedures aim to ensure that animals are treated
humanely and in a manner consistent with conservation and animal welfare obligations. Additional
aims include elevating public awareness associated with this issue, ensuring direct and real threats
to public safety are proactively and effectively addressed and engaging relevant agencies and
organisations in providing a strategic approach to community support and mitigation of these issues.
5.2.2 OEH Rehabilitation of Protected Fauna Policy
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/100893PolicyFaunaRehab.pdf
This policy is intended to ensure that fauna rehabilitators are appropriately licensed and accountable
for their activities and that they conduct these activities in an efficient and effective manner. This
includes the provision of an appropriate level of animal care by operating in accordance with
approved Codes of Practice and Guidelines. The policy also seeks to that rehabilitation of protected
fauna contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity through the successful return of temporarily
disadvantaged animals to their natural habitat and by managing the risks associated with such
actions. The policy includes guidelines relating to release techniques including the need to avoid
release of large numbers of individuals at a single location. The latter point is particularly pertinent
to this management plan as the release of rehabilitated kangaroos within or nearby to peri-urban
locations would be highly likely to contribute to and exacerbate kangaroo management issues in
these areas.
5.2.3 OEH Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Fauna
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifelicences/RehabFaunaCode.htm
This Code of practice is designed for those involved in the rescue, rehabilitation and release of native
fauna and shows how they can protect the welfare of the animals in their care. It has been prepared
by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) in consultation with the NSW Wildlife Council,
Taronga Conservation Society and the RSPCA NSW and is supported by the NSW Animal Welfare
Advisory Council of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services.
This Code contains both standards and guidelines for the care of native animals that are incapable of
fending for themselves in their natural habitat. Compliance with the standards is a condition of all
OEH rehabilitation licences.
51
5.2.4 Policy- Management of Wildlife Disease and Pest Incidents (NSW Trade &
Investment)
A number of diseases are known to impact kangaroos and kangaroo populations along Australia’s
east coast. Questions relating to communicable diseases, associations between high kangaroo
densities and disease as well as the impact of disease kangaroo aggression levels are all relevant to
this policy. The policy describes how disease and pest incidents in wildlife are managed by NSW
Department of Primary Industries (DPI) in conjunction with other agencies and organisations.
5.2.5 Moonee Beach Nature Reserve Plan of Management
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/.../20120196MooneeBeachNRFinal.pdf
The Moonee Beach Nature Reserve includes significant areas of kangaroo habitat associated
particularly with native headland and strandline grasslands. The plan describes the kangaroo
population that grazes Look At Me Now Headland as increasing in numbers and states that this
poses a potential risk to visitors. Sign-based interpretive display facilities concerning kangaroos and
their potential risk to humans are in place at entry points to Look At Me Now and Damerells
headlands.
Kangaroo observation at Look At Me Now Headland is promoted as an eco-tourism activity in Coffs
Coast tourism brochures (e.g. http://www.coffscoast.com.au/see-and-do/101-things/).
Kangaroo Grass communities on Look At Me Now and Damerells headlands are part of an
Endangered Ecological Community (see Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995)and grazing
impacts are currently being investigated as part of a University of New England PhD research project.
5.3 Coffs Harbour City Council strategies and plans relevant to peri-urban
kangaroo management
5.3.1 Coffs Harbour City Council Biodiversity Action Strategy 2015
This strategy includes actions relevant to the conservation and management of kangaroos along with
all other native biodiversity across the Coffs Harbour LGA. Pertinent actions within the strategy
emphasise community engagement, conservation and restoration of ecosystems, control of invasive
species, fire management and knowledge building.
5.3.2 Coffs Harbour City Council Rural - Residential Strategy 2009
Rural residential developments can impact kangaroo habitats in one of three ways: no impact,
negative impact (loss of kangaroo habitat) or positive impact (enhancement of kangaroo habitat).
Previous rural residential development at Heritage Park and Avocado Heights in particular, now part
of Moonee Beach, have unintentionally promoted kangaroo habitats and resulted in relatively
abundant kangaroo populations where numbers were (apparently) previously much lower when
these lands were mixtures of rural land use and remnant natural areas.
The strategy identifies potential future rural residential development at two locations on the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches: Corindi Beach and Korora-Moonee-Sapphire.
52
5.3.3 Coffs Harbour City Council Our Living City Settlement Strategy 2008
This strategy outlines aspirations and plans for urban development across Coffs Harbour LGA to
2031. As is evident in parts of Woolgoolga, Safety Beach, Emerald Beach and other urban locations
on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches, under the right conditions kangaroos have the ability to
colonize and inhabit urban areas. This is generally where expanses of favourable kangaroo habitat
(e.g. golf course, headland grasslands, playing fields and open spaces) adjoin urban areas.
5.3.4 Vertebrate Pest Management Strategy (Coffs Harbour City Council)
As protected fauna under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) kangaroos are not considered to
be vertebrate pests under this plan. However the plan is directly relevant to kangaroo management
in the Coffs Harbour district as it is a key strategy for the management and control of wild dogs
which predate kangaroos.
5.3.5 Coffs Harbour City Council Companion Animals Management Plan
This plan aims to effectively manage companion animals (i.e. dogs and cats) to ensure animal
welfare, protection of the environment, and the rights of owners and non-owners alike. Key
objectives of the plan, with respect to kangaroo management, are to “promote responsible dog
ownership particularly in regard to wildlife protection” and “actively reduce the number of feral
animals in the local district”.
53
6. COFFS HARBOUR KANGAROO HABITAT
A map of broad potential kangaroo habitat was developed as part of the preparation of the
kangaroo management plan to provide some spatial context for the issues identified in section 4, the
Kangaroo Management Units mapped in section 10 and the management approaches and actions
outlined in sections 11 & 12.
6.1 Coffs Harbour potential kangaroo habitat
The mapping process was undertaken within Coffs Harbour City Council’s Geographic Information
System (GIS) by application of the following stages:
a) A binary classification (0 = non-kangaroo habitat, 1 = potential kangaroo habitat) was applied to
all vegetation classes within the best available vegetation mapping for the Coffs harbour LGA
(Class 5 mapping);
b) Cleared land (as a surrogate for derived grasslands, as opposed to natural grasslands in stage (a),
was also designated as 1 = potential kangaroo habitat in the best available land use map layer;
The products from a) and b) were combined to yield an initial broad depiction of kangaroo habitat
across the LGA (Map 8).
c) A proximity analysis was then applied using the 676 kangaroo incident records from the collated
WIRES and NPWS kangaroo databases (see section 4) to classify within potential kangaroo
habitat. The proximity classes were 1, 2, 5 and 10 kilometres from mapped kangaroo incidents
(Map 9). Refined kangaroo habitat classes were then applied to the proximity classes (Map 10):
• Class 1 (best habitat): Potential habitat within 1 kilometre of a kangaroo incident;
• Class 2 (good habitat): Potential habitat within 1 to 2 kilometres of a kangaroo incident;
• Class 3 (marginal to good habitat): Potential habitat within 2 to 5 kilometres of a kangaroo
incident;
• Class 4 (marginal habitat): Potential habitat within 5 to 10 kilometres of a kangaroo incident;
• Remaining potential habitat.
Note that stage (c) is not based on any ecological understanding but was applied purely as a means
to refine the potential habitat model based upon the known spatial distribution of kangaroo
incidents; it is therefore heavily influenced by kangaroo – human incidents but that bias is deemed
suitable for a plan aiming to manage such interactions. Further ecological studies of kangaroo
occurrence may help to produce a more ecological representation of habitat across the LGA.
Map 11 illustrates the best current depiction of potential kangaroo habitat on the Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches. In summary it provides a very broad depiction of potential habitat based on
perceived ability for kangaroos to move and forage through available mapped vegetation and land-
use categories within CHCC’s mapping system.
54
Map 8. Broad potential kangaroo habitat in relation to 676 databased kangaroo incident records
across Coffs Harbour Local Government Area.
55
Map 9. Broad potential kangaroo habitat, 676 databased kangaroo incident records and proximity
zones around the records across Coffs Harbour Local Government Area
56
Map 10. Allocated kangaroo habitat classes across Coffs Harbour Local Government Area based
upon proximity to databased kangaroo incidents
57
Map 11. Allocated kangaroo habitat classes on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches based upon
proximity to databased kangaroo incidents
58
7 GUIDANCE FROM PREVIOUS PERI-URBAN KANGAROO STUDIES
There have been a number of studies conducted in eastern and south-eastern Australia concerning
peri-urban kangaroo populations and their impacts on humans. Some are directly relevant to
considerations of human – kangaroo interactions on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches with
insights applicable to the formulation of local kangaroo management approaches and actions. Key
references and dot point summaries relevant in that context are presented below under headings
pertaining to key points derived from these and other studies.
7.1 Peri-urban kangaroo impacts require a measured management response
• Under certain circumstances urbanization, and particularly peri-urbanization, can lead to the
unintended enhancement of kangaroo habitats (Coulson et al. 2014).
• Peri-urban kangaroo management issues are real with potentially significant issues flowing to
human social, economic, animal welfare, environmental values (Jarman and Gray 2000, Coulson
2007, Ballard 2008, Territory and Municipal Services 2010);
• Demonstrable, evidence-based negative impacts, on humans or kangaroo, resulting from
human-kangaroo interactions indicate population overabundance and a need for kangaroo
management (Adderton Herbert 2004, Coulson 2007, Ballard 2008, Inwood et al. 2008, Fletcher
2007, Territory and Municipal Services 2010);
• Local kangaroo management committees have a key role to play in facilitating relevant kangaroo
management approaches and maintaining communication between authorities and other
stakeholders (Coulson 2007, Inwood et al. 2008, Scotts 2008);
• Community engagement, in the form of actively seeking feedback from stakeholders about their
experiences and preferences for management provides authorities with the information to make
informed decisions about how to alleviate or mitigate issues (Ballard 2005, 2008).
7.2 Key issues
• With regard to abundant peri-urban kangaroo populations the management issues of greatest
consequence are road accidents, attacks on people, kangaroo disease (including potential
transfer to humans) and or impacts on threatened species (or vegetation communities) (Coulson
2007) (also see section 4).
7.3 Proactive kangaroo management; community engagement and education
• Tailored community surveys highlight a range of attitudes and management preferences among
humans who live with abundant kangaroos in peri-urban situations. Attitudes are generally
positive but negative attitudes are present as well, particularly among people who have
experienced kangaroo attack first hand (Ballard 2008);
59
• Tailored community surveys overwhelmingly indicate that proactive or indirect kangaroo
management approaches are favoured by people living with kangaroos in peri-urban locations;
education to make people aware of how to live with kangaroos was most favoured (Jarman and
Gray 2000; Ballard 2005, 2008).
7.4 Reactive or direct kangaroo management approaches
• Where education cannot alleviate kangaroo – human conflict then some form of reactive or
direct kangaroo management is socially acceptable; culling is seen as unacceptable by people
living with kangaroos in peri-urban locations while capture and relocation is often most favoured
(Ballard 2005, 2008);
• Although community surveys indicate a preference for translocation to alleviate kangaroo-
human conflict it remains a highly problematic approach due to a number of issues including
high labour costs, high levels of stress caused to kangaroos and a general lack of suitable sites to
receive animals (Higginbottam and Page 2010, Territory and Municipal Services 2010). It may be
a suitable approach for small numbers of rehabilitated kangaroos;
• More recent advances in the use of contraceptive drugs for kangaroo fertility control at the
population level make this a socially acceptable and favourable approach to kangaroo
population management (Coulson 2007, Herbert et al. 2010, Herbert 2015). Issues remain with
regard to labour costs and chemical delivery techniques (Coulson 2007, Herbert et al. 2010) but
recent successes and advances give cause for optimism (Herbert 2015).
7.5 Adaptive management
• Peri-urban kangaroo management should be undertaken within an adaptive management
framework whereby the results of management actions are assessed, monitored, evaluated and,
if necessary, modified in light of prevailing community attitudes and kangaroo population
responses (Coulson 2007);
• Systematically collected information concerning kangaroo numbers within peri-urban locations
are required as a baseline to management efforts and also as feedback to monitor the long term
impacts of adopted management approaches (Coulson 2007, Coulson et al. 2014, Herbert 2015);
• Citizen science approaches, allowing strategic and co-ordinated input from local stakeholders, is
ideally suited to the generation of relevant management information regarding peri-urban
kangaroos (Coulson et al. 2014);
• Targeted and applied research can generate important peri-urban kangaroo management
information relevant to characteristically variable local kangaroo populations and habitats
(Territory and Municipal Services 2010, Coulson et al. 2014, Herbert 2015).
60
8 COFFS HARBOUR PEOPLE AND KANGAROOS
As outlined in section 2.4 community engagement formed the basis for development of this
management plan. This section carries on from section 2.4 in describing the results of applied
community engagement program.
8.1 Community engagement
From the outset the development of this kangaroo management plan has been based upon
recognition that the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches community needs to be engaged, educated
and informed with regard to kangaroo management issues. This is reflected in three of the plan’s
objectives:
• Reduce the incidence of negative interactions between people and kangaroos.
• Raise community awareness regarding kangaroo management issues.
• Engage and empower the community to live safely with kangaroos and help deal with kangaroo
management issues.
Community engagement has formed the basis for the development of the plan and has been
undertaken collaboratively with NPWS (Community Engagement group and Rangers), WIRES
representatives, and researchers from the University of New England (UNE). A Community and
Stakeholder Engagement Strategy was developed by the Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management
Committee (see summary boxes 5 & 6 in section 2.4 for community engagement objectives and key
messages). There were three broad components to the overall community engagement program:
a) An on-line community survey regarding people’s attitudes towards kangaroos in the Coffs
Harbour Local Government Area (coordinated by Tim Henderson, Honours candidate, UNE and
facilitated through the kangaroo management plan project);
b) Face to face community field days at four key kangaroo hot spots on the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches;
c) Targeted engagement with specific stakeholder groups with a known interest in kangaroo
management issues or with known or potential kangaroo issues.
The community engagement program facilitated the development of a Coffs Harbour kangaroo
stakeholder list with relevant contact information. This list will allow subsequent contact to be made
with known stakeholders.
61
8.2 On-line community surveys
On-line surveys provide a convenient forum for systematic soliciting of responses from the
community regarding all manner of issues. A tailored on-line survey, using the Survey Monkey site,
was formulated and applied by Tim Henderson (UNE Honours student- see section 2.1.1) and
facilitated by the kangaroo management project. The survey entailed 54 questions and was designed
to learn about Coffs Harbour resident’s values, attitudes and concerns regarding kangaroo, and to
collect information about kangaroo populations and movement. The survey ran from December
2015 to January 2016 and targeted all Coffs Harbour residents. Only preliminary results are provided
here.
The on-line survey targeted Coffs Harbour residents though a media release to the Coffs Harbour
Advocate, the Woolgoolga Advertiser and local television and radio media (see Box 7). The media
release resulted in newspaper articles and an ABC radio interview with NPWS Area Manager Glenn
Storrie. Information relating to the kangaroo management plan generally and the on-line survey
specifically was also posted on the Coffs Harbour City Council website though the months of
December 2015 – January 2016. In addition residents of four known Northern Beaches kangaroo hot
spots (Safety Beach, parts of Woolgoolga, Emerald Beach, and Heritage Park - Avocado Heights)
were targeted, through a council-mediated information mail-out, to encourage responses to the
survey.
Results of the on-line survey will be provided and analysed in detail in Tim Henderson’s Honours
thesis and information relating to the results can be sourced by contacting Tim Henderson at UNE; in
addition the results will be the subject of a future published research paper. A summary of the
results is presented below to provide some context regarding community attitudes to peri-urban
kangaroos.
8.2.1 Overall summary of on-line survey results
Results from the on-line survey showed a high level of community interest and concern regarding
kangaroo management with 344 individual responses. Broad summary figures and statistics, across
the whole survey and under broad issue headings, were:
Note: For summary points where differences in the survey results between the four broad
community survey areas (Safety Beach, Woolgoolga, Emerald beach, Heritage park – Avocado
Heights) are discernible an asterix * is added at the end of the point. These points of geographic
difference are discussed in section 8.2.2.
Human demographics
• Overall mainly older (45 – 74 years) long term (>10 years) Coffs Harbour residents responded;
• The majority were from Woolgoolga (94), Safety Beach (79), Heritage Park – Avocado Heights
(69) and Emerald Beach (64);
• Most (87%) were aware of kangaroos in their area before moving there;
63
People’s general attitudes towards kangaroos and kangaroo populations
• Most feel kangaroos have a positive impact on their quality of life (80%), local environment
(83%) and appreciation for local wildlife (90%); *
• Most (59%) believe kangaroo populations in their area are about right but more people believe
they are too high (36%) than too low (7%); *
• Most (53%) believe kangaroo populations in their area have increased in recent times but many
(32%) believe they have stayed about the same; *
• Many (31%) were unsure whether kangaroos are protected by law; half (50%) were aware that
kangaroos are protected everywhere in NSW, with many (13%) believing they are protected only
within national parks;
• The vast majority (77%) preferred there to be free-ranging kangaroos; 20% preferred there to be
kangaroos, but not on properties or roads; 3% preferred there to be no kangaroos at all.
Concern regarding kangaroo–motor vehicle accidents
• Most people (60%) are concerned about motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos but many
(37%) are not; *
• 10% of people reported having hit a kangaroo with their vehicle within the last year but most
(60%) have had to avoid hitting a kangaroo in their neighbourhood; *
• Most people (65%) preferred wildlife signage to address collision risk, although other methods
also received reasonable support.
Domestic dogs and kangaroos
• The vast majority (85%) of dog owners say they fence their dog in at night but 6% say their dogs
are only restrained at night and 7% that their dog are free to roam.
• Most (63%) are concerned about dogs harassing or attacking kangaroos and the majority (55%)
believe dogs should be restrained to a greater level; *
• Some people (up to 15%) are concerned about kangaroos attacking dogs;
Kangaroo diseases
• Most (76%) are unaware of diseases in kangaroos but 18% have seen signs of disease; *
• Most (82%) are unconcerned about kangaroos as a disease risk to people (as vectors of disease)
but 7% are concerned;
Kangaroo-human conflict
• Large adult males are considered to be the most aggressive or of most concern by 65% of
respondents;
64
• Opinion was evenly spread, between euthanasia, relocation, nothing, unsure, as to the preferred
fate of a kangaroo that has attacked a person;
• Relocation was the preferred fate (39% of respondents) for a kangaroo that appears aggressive
or threatening;
• Of the listed potential kangaroo population control methods culling and euthanasia are methods
people mainly do not agree with (each ~60% of people);
• Most people (71%) are not concerned about potential conflict with kangaroos but many (25%)
are concerned; *
• Of four conflict scenarios respondents were generally most concerned about dogs attacking
kangaroos, followed by kangaroos attacking people, then humans attacking kangaroos and lastly
kangaroos attacking dogs; *
People feeding kangaroos
• About 10% of people feed, or know someone who feeds, kangaroos;
• The vast majority (94%) believe feeding kangaroos is a bad idea;
Kangaroo awareness and safety education
• About 45% of people said they would adopt the ‘drop & curl into a ball’ (or ‘roo roll’) technique
(as promoted by OEH / NPWS in kangaroo awareness and safety programs as the kangaroo will
quickly lose interest) if attacked by a kangaroo; Quite a few (20%) said they would run away (not
promoted as it may encourage the kangaroo to chase); *
• Many people (~60%) feel uninformed or highly uninformed about kangaroo safety issues;
• Only 20% of people were aware of the NPWS ‘Living with Kangaroos’ school awareness and
safety program;
• More than 90% of people feel that new residents (in kangaroo hot spots) should be provided
with information on how to live with kangaroos;
Overall feelings about kangaroo-human interactions
• The majority of people (78%) feel positive or somewhat positive about their interactions with
kangaroos but 13% feel negative or slightly negative. *
Interesting and varied comments, including from both ends of the ‘kangaroo appreciation’ -
‘tolerance’ - ‘need for management’ spectrum, resulted from an invitation for any additional
comments after completion of the survey. A broad sample of these comments is supplied as
Appendix 3 to this plan. The comments highlight a high degree of concern about human safety,
among a small proportion of people, that is somewhat masked by the broad survey results. People
who feel threatened by kangaroos, some to the extent that they are afraid to leave their house or
vehicle when kangaroos are nearby, tend to be those who have direct experience of a kangaroo
attack, on themselves, their family or their dog.
65
8.2.2 Selected summary results relative to four key kangaroo hot-spots
As referred to (8.2.1), delving slightly deeper into the results of the on-line survey reveals subtle
differences in views, attitudes and opinions towards kangaroos, their populations and their
management between the four broad Northern Beaches: Safety Beach, Woolgoolga, Emerald beach,
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights. These differences, and potential reasons for them, are discussed
briefly below in reference to the relevant survey questions.
Overall the differences here appear to reflect and correlate with documented kangaroo population
numbers and trends and the prevalence of kangaroo-human incidents, kangaroo-vehicle collisions
and avoidance incidents, kangaroo disease and other kangaroo impacts (see sections 3 & 4) across
these four broad locations.
People’s general attitudes towards kangaroos and kangaroo populations
Question 10. Do you feel that kangaroos have a positive or negative impact on: Your quality of life;
your local environment; your appreciation for native wildlife? (Figure 11).
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga respondents were most negative about kangaroos
while Emerald Beach and Safety Beach people were the most positive.
Question 16. How many kangaroos do you regularly see at once (e.g. in a mob) around your
neighbourhood (select one or more).
People regularly see much larger mobs of kangaroos at Heritage Park – Avocado Heights than at the
other three locations (Figure 12).
Question 18. Do you believe kangaroo populations in your local area are: Too low; Somewhat low;
About right; Somewhat high; Too high.
A higher proportion of people from Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga believed local
kangaroo populations to be too high than people from Emerald Beach and Safety Beach where most
people thought populations were about right (Figure 13).
Question 19: Since living at your current address, do you believe kangaroo numbers have: Increased;
Decreased; Stayed about the same; Unsure
A higher proportion of people from Emerald Beach and Woolgoolga believed kangaroo numbers
have increased since they moved to their address. Most people at Safety Beach thought kangaroos
have stayed about the same or decreased in number (Figure 14). People at Heritage Park – Avocado
heights were split in their views about this.
66
Figure 11. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 10: Do you feel that
kangaroos have a positive or negative impact on: Your quality of life; your local environment; your
appreciation for native wildlife?
67
Figure 12. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 16: How many kangaroos
do you regularly see at once (e.g. in a mob) around your neighbourhood (select one or more).
68
Figure 13. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 18: Do you believe
kangaroo populations in your local area are: Too low; Somewhat low; About right; Somewhat
high; Too high. Note slightly variable % scale for Safety Beach – but proportions remain consistent.
69
Figure 14. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 19: Since living at your
current address, do you believe kangaroo numbers have: Increased; Decreased; Stayed about the
same; Unsure. Note slightly variable % scales – but proportions remain consistent.
70
Concern regarding kangaroo–motor vehicle accidents
Question 21: Are you concerned about the chance of collision between vehicles and kangaroos in
your local area?
About 80% of people from Heritage Park – Avocado Heights were concerned about vehicle collisions
with kangaroos (Figure 15). This was far above proportions for Woolgoolga (59%); Safety Beach
(54%) and Emerald Beach (40%) and reflects WIRES call-outs for kangaroos hit by vehicles as
reported in section 4.1.3 and Map 6.
Question 22: Within the last year, how many times have you been involved in a vehicle collision with
kangaroos in your neighbourhood?
This question revealed a marked disparity between Heritage Park - Avocado Heights, where 25% of
people had been involved in a collision with a kangaroo, and the other 3 locations, all less than 8%
(Figure 16). In addition, 85% from Heritage Park reported having to avoid hitting a kangaroo on their
local roads more than once within the last year compared with 65% from Safety Beach, 54% from
Woolgoolga and 46% from Emerald Beach.
Domestic dogs and kangaroos
Question 30: Do you believe restrictions should be placed on kangaroos or dogs to reduce
interactions between the two?
While many people answered neither or unsure to this question (Figure 17) some variation is
uncovered here with more people at Safety Beach and Emerald Beach believing dogs should be
restricted to reduce conflict with kangaroos than at Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and
Woolgoolga (Figure 17). Far fewer people overall believed kangaroos should be restricted but of
those that did proportionately more were from Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga.
Kangaroo diseases
Question 38: Have you seen any kangaroos with signs of disease in your local area?
Far more people had observed signs of disease in kangaroos at Heritage Park – Avocado Heights than
anywhere else (Figure 18). Again this correlates with observations reported in section 4.1.4 and Map
7. Heritage Park supports the highest density kangaroo population on the Northern Beaches and this
may translate into greater likelihood of disease.
Kangaroo-human conflict
Question 40: Are you concerned about potential conflict between yourself and kangaroos?
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga people were more concerned about conflict with
kangaroos (40% & 35% respectively) than Emerald Beach (20%) and Safety Beach (14%) people
(Figure 19).
Question 41: in order from 1 to 4, which interactions are you most concerned about? (1 being
highest concern, 4 being least concerned)?
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga people responded similarly to this question and
were relatively more concerned about kangaroos attacking people than people from Safety Beach
and Emerald Beach people who were most concerned about dogs attacking kangaroos (Figure 20).
71
Figure 15. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 21: Are you concerned
about the chance of collision between vehicles and kangaroos in your local area?
72
Figure 16. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 22: Within the last year,
how many times have you been involved in a vehicle collision with kangaroos in your
neighbourhood?
73
Figure 17. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 30: Do you believe
restrictions should be placed on kangaroos or dogs to reduce interactions between the two?
74
Figure 18. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 38: Have you seen any
kangaroos with signs of disease in your local area?
75
Figure 19. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 40: Are you concerned
about potential conflict between yourself and kangaroos?
76
Figure 20. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 41: in order from 1 to 4,
which interactions are you most concerned about? (1 being highest concern, 4 being least
concerned)?
77
Kangaroo awareness and safety education
Question 45: If attacked by a kangaroo, would you most likely: Run away; Fight Back; Curl into a ball;
Drop to the ground and crawl away; Call for help; Do nothing; Unsure?
Analysis of results here demonstrated that Heritage Park – Avocado Heights people were the most
likely to adopt the NPWS-promoted “Drop & Curl” (or ‘Roo Roll”) posture if attacked by a kangaroo
while Woolgoolga people were the least likely to do so with many being unsure or likely to run away
(Figure 21). This indicated a higher level of kangaroo safety awareness at Heritage Park – Avocado
Heights and a lower level at Woolgoolga. Safety Beach and Emerald Beach residents demonstrated
an intermediate level of awareness but less than half chose the NPWS promoted option.
Overall feelings about kangaroo-human interactions
Question 53: Overall, how do you feel about your interactions with kangaroos in your local area:
Positive interactions; Somewhat positive; neutral; slightly negative; negative.
This concluding question again revealed two groups based on similarity of responses: a Heritage Park
– Avocado Heights / Woolgoolga group and a Safety Beach / Emerald Beach group (Figure 22).
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga people were overall less positive (and more
negative) about their interactions with kangaroos than Safety Beach and Emerald beach people who
indicated overwhelmingly positive or somewhat positive feelings.
8.2.3 Overall trends and generalisations from the on-line community survey
Most peri-urban Northern Beaches people felt positive about kangaroos but proportionately more
people from Heritage Park – Avocado Heights and Woolgoolga felt negative in this regard and
believed kangaroo populations to be too high. People from these two broad locations have
experienced relatively more motor vehicle accidents, or near accidents, involving kangaroos and
Heritage Park – Avocado Heights is also where most kangaroo attacks have occurred and where
kangaroo disease has been most prevalent. Woolgoolga people appeared to be the least aware of
appropriate responses to an attacking kangaroo. People from these two broad locations were overall
most concerned about conflict with kangaroos.
Proportionately more people from Safety Beach and Emerald Beach felt positive about their
interactions with kangaroos and believed kangaroo populations to be about right. Kangaroo attacks,
disease and motor vehicle incidents involving kangaroos were evidently less common in these two
broad locations and people there were overall more concerned about dog attacks on kangaroos than
they were about kangaroos attacking people.
Overall most people felt ill-informed with regard to kangaroo awareness and safety and supported
the provision of more education and signage, including road awareness signage. The provision of
information on how to live with kangaroos to new residents was supported by the vast majority of
people. Some people persist in feeding peri-urban kangaroos even though the vast majority of
people believe it to be a bad idea.
78
Figure 21. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 45: If attacked by a
kangaroo, would you most likely: Run away; Fight Back; Curl into a ball; Drop to the ground and
crawl away; Call for help; Do nothing; Unsure?
79
Figure 22. Summary results from the kangaroo on-line survey: Question 53: Overall, how do you
feel about your interactions with kangaroos in your local area: Positive interactions; Somewhat
positive, neutral, slightly negative, negative.
80
8.3 Community information sessions
Four kangaroo community information sessions were undertaken in March 2016. These sessions
were publically advertised (see press release – Box 8). In addition, people who had participated in
the online community kangaroo survey (Survey Monkey) (see section 8.2) were notified of the
sessions by email.
8.3.1 Safety Beach – Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club
(5th March 2016)
Approximately 10 Safety Beach residents visited the marquee expressly seeking information. All
indicated highly positive feelings towards kangaroos and little need for population control in their
area. The majority indicated dogs harassing kangaroos as their main concern. Many highlighted the
need for kangaroo awareness education to equip people with the knowledge of how to deal, and live
with kangaroos.
One visitor who grew blueberries was concerned about kangaroos impacting bird exclusion nets.
8.3.2 Emerald Beach foreshore
(6th March 2016)
Around 40 people dropped into the marquee. The vast majority were positive about their
interactions with kangaroo. One resident was highly concerned about kangaroo numbers and
impacts of elevated kangaroo numbers, expressing a strong desire to see population numbers
controlled. Most people agreed that, if population control was undertaken, fertility control would be
the best option.
Many residents expressed concern regarding the impacts of dogs on kangaroos and particularly on
kangaroo north-south movements through the front beach and foreshore area due to the
abundance of dogs. Dogs are not allowed on the Emerald front beach but this appears to be largely
ignored by residents and visitors with many visitors to the marquee reporting dogs chasing and
harassing kangaroos, even within the Moonee Beach Nature Reserve.
82
Figure 23. Kangaroo community information session at Woolgoolga market, 12th
March 2016.
8.3.3 Woolgoolga market
(12th March 2016)
Around 90 people visited the marquee which was erected as part of the Woolgoolga market. Some
people attended the session specifically to discuss kangaroos and others in passing while market-
browsing.
The overwhelming feeling was one of support and concern for kangaroos. There was a universal
aversion to the idea of kangaroo culling although some people expressed a desire to see lower
numbers or expressed the view that there are “too many” kangaroos. Fertility control was supported
as the most appropriate population control method when options were presented.
8.3.4 Heritage Park
(19th March, 2016)
Around 40 people dropped into the street-side marquee erected at Heritage Park to discuss
kangaroo issues.
The majority of people expressed positive feelings for kangaroos but a small number had
experienced kangaroo attacks, either on themselves, family members or family dogs. A small
number of people said they often feel threatened by the presence of kangaroos near their living
spaces as well as on walking routes. These people had been subject of previous “unprovoked”
83
kangaroo attack. At least one resident said she felt “a bit bewildered and out-numbered by the
largely pro-kangaroo Heritage Park community”.
No-one expressed a desire for culling but many thought numbers were too high. When canvassed
with possible population control methods all favoured fertility control over lethal methods.
Fencing was a significant issue for many Heritage Park residents. Some people have erected
perimeter fencing in an attempt to exclude kangaroos from entire property. Others favour partial
fencing which allows kangaroo access and movement through part of their properties. There was
also some indication of informal co-operative approaches providing kangaroo movement
connections between neighbouring properties. Some residents combine fences with dogs to deter
kangaroos from fenced areas. Many were opposed to perimeter fencing as it tends to exclude
kangaroos and displace them to other people’s properties. Many expressed frustration with the lack
of current controls over fencing; these people referred to development covenants that excluded
perimeter fencing in some parts of Heritage Park but not others. In most cases the covenants are
not regulated by Council but are a civil matter between the residents of the estate, making
enforcement very difficult.
Many visitors to the Heritage Park kangaroo session stressed that children in particular have to be
supervised in the presence of kangaroos. Many highlighted the need for kangaroo awareness
education to equip people with the knowledge of how to deal, and live with kangaroos.
8.4 Summary of Northern Beaches community attitudes towards kangaroos
Key findings from the on-line community survey and the community information days indicate that
the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches community, and particularly people living with abundant
kangaroos in peri-urban locations, is overwhelmingly in favour of retaining kangaroos in their
environment. The vast majority of people engaged in these ways indicated that overall their
interactions with kangaroos are positive and that they enjoy having free-ranging kangaroos in their
living and recreational environments. However significant numbers of people had experienced
negative interactions with kangaroos or were concerned about potential conflict with kangaroos,
some to the extent that they are afraid to leave their houses or cars when kangaroos are in close
proximity. Some of these people also feel socially isolated within communities due to kangaroo
related issues. Most people who engaged felt that kangaroo numbers had increased.
At community information days many people were of the view that kangaroo numbers are about
right but supported non-lethal methods of kangaroo population control.
8.5 Other targeted community engagement
Stakeholder groups with a known interest in kangaroo management issues as well as schools,
caravan parks and holiday parks with known or potential kangaroo issues were also contacted as
part of the community engagement program.
8.5.1 Aboriginal groups
Representatives of the Garlambirla Guyuu Girrwaa (Coffs Elders group) and the Garby Elders were
informed about the development of the Kangaroo Management Plan by Coffs Coast NPWS as part of
84
an on-going program of liaison and mutual information sharing. The representatives were also
consulted on the draft plan and did not envisage any issues.
8.5.2 Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches schools
There are seven schools on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. Students from five of the schools
have been the subject of previous kangaroo awareness and safety training workshops through the
NPWS Discovery Rangers Living with Wildlife program.
The Principals of each Northern Beaches school were contacted to introduce the Kangaroo
Management Plan project and to seek feedback relating to any current kangaroo issues. The school
representative was provided with a brief verbal background to the development of the Kangaroo
Management Plan and asked for a current update regarding kangaroo issues at their school. The
school representative was informed that their school would be included within the plan as a
Kangaroo Priority Zone 1 area (see section 10) along with other Northern Beaches schools.
None of the schools indicated significant current kangaroo management issues. Those with current
kangaroo presence in or around the school grounds or sporting fields highlighted their own
kangaroo awareness and safety programs and several referred to the NPWS Discovery Rangers
kangaroo awareness and safety training as a successful education program for their students over
recent years. Where perimeter fencing was present, this reportedly eliminated most, if not all
kangaroo issues.
8.5.3 Northern Beaches Caravan Parks and Holiday Parks
There are several caravan parks / holiday parks on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches, some with
the potential to be impacted by peri-urban kangaroo management issues.
All Northern Beaches caravan parks/holiday parks were allocated to a Kangaroo Priority Zone 2 area
(see section 10) along with other Northern Beaches caravan parks / holiday parks. This zoning will
provide a reference for the Kangaroo Steering Committee, agencies and potential funding bodies in
event that the park applies for funding or resourcing (e.g. targeted kangaroo awareness and safety
courses or workshops) assistance to deal with any future kangaroo management issues such as a
desire to erect strategic kangaroo-exclusion fencing (e.g. see Appendix 1).
Managers at one park, Darlington Beach Holiday Park, reported significant ongoing kangaroo issues.
Darlington Beach park has been subject of NPWS engagement concerning kangaroo management
issues for some time and the current managers are keen to continue direct engagement on this
issue. There have been a number of kangaroo attacks and threats at Darlington Beach park over
recent years (see section 4.1.2). It is highly likely that previous and ongoing feeding of kangaroos has
contributed to kangaroo issues at this site. Park owners actively implement kangaroo education
programs and policies, attempt to control kangaroo feeding by visitors and have engaged NPWS to
deliver kangaroo safety workshops. Never the less kangaroo feeding continues, albeit on a small
scale, in the park. A kangaroo management plan was developed for the park a few years ago; the
plan initiated systematic kangaroo counts and these were re-initiated as part of the data collection
phase of the kangaroo management plan project (see section 9). Kangaroo management remains a
significant issue at Darlington Beach park and at the time of writing this plan a Sydney University
85
research project, to trial kangaroo fertility treatment as a kangaroo population control method, had
successfully secured funds through the Coffs Harbour Council’s Environment Levy 2016-17.
All other caravan parks/holiday parks reported only minor incidents with kangaroos. Lorikeet park,
which shares a boundary with Darlington Beach park, referred to the on-going presence of
kangaroos within their grounds. This site has a kangaroo awareness program, including camp kitchen
signage and brochures and a strict policy of no kangaroo feeding, by residents and visitors, but the
extent to which this is enforced is unknown. The manager reported a few “minor” kangaroo
incidents and agreed to contact NPWS upon any escalation of those issues. Sunset Caravan park,
Woolgoolga and Emerald Beach Holiday Park reported only sporadic kangaroo occurrence and no
issues; Moonee Beach Caravan Park stated that they do not get any kangaroos within their grounds
at this stage.
8.5.4 Wildlife Rescue Incorporated NSW
Wildlife Rescue Incorporated NSW is a specialist volunteer organization dedicated to the rescue of
native animals. It is a not-for-profit registered charity, independent of any other organization or
Government body.
Members of this group assist with the rescue of kangaroos, along with other wildlife, on the Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches. Their operations are external to those of WIRES although some
members are also registered with WIRES.
This group has been identified as an important stakeholder and NPWS committed to maintaining
communication concerning the Kangaroo Management Plan and associated issues.
8.5.5 Media engagement
Kangaroo issues, and specifically kangaroo attacks on people on the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches, have resulted in a number of local newspaper articles highlighting the high level of public
interest in kangaroo management with some stories supporting calls for kangaroo culls (see
Information Box 9).
Media engagement was undertaken as part of the Kangaroo Management Plan project as an
important way of engendering and facilitating more positive stories about kangaroos and their
management and to inform the community about the Kangaroo Management Plan generally and the
community engagement program particularly (e.g. see Information Boxes 7 & 8). In addition, CHCC
Sustainable Communities Director, Chris Chapman, and NPWS Coffs Coast Area Manager, Glenn
Storrie, were interviewed by ABC Radio and NBN news. Coffs Harbour City Council’s website also
featured the Kangaroo Management Plan and the on-line community survey over the December
2015 – February 2016 period.
8.5.6 Kangaroo awareness brochures and signage
The NPWS / OEH Living with Kangaroos brochure is a key information source in NPWS’s ongoing
kangaroo community engagement program. The brochure has been disseminated widely to raise
people’s awareness and to highlight the safest way of dealing with an aggressive kangaroo. The
brochure has also formed the basis for development and demonstration of the “Roo Roll” posture
86
promoted by NPWS as the best response a person can make to an aggressive kangaroo and as
taught to school children as part of the Discovery Rangers kangaroo awareness and safety program.
The brochure is available by calling the NSW Enviroline on 131555.
Kangaroo awareness signs are in place at a number of locations across the Northern Beaches
including at Moonee Beach Nature Reserve (entrances to Damerells and Look At Me Now
Headlands, Emerald Beach), Darlington Beach Holiday Park (see section 8.5.3), Woolgoolga Diggers
Golf Club, Safety Beach. More signs are needed, including traffic calming signs at kangaroo hot spots
and awareness signs at Council playing fields and open spaces with a kangaroo presence and various
locations within the Coffs Coast Regional Park (e.g. Corindi Beach, Mullaway, Arrawarra Headland,
Safety Beach, Woolgoolga, Sandy Beach, Emerald Beach (see sections 11 & 12).
87
Information Box 9.
Newspaper articles concerning kangaroo attacks on Coffs Harbour’s
Northern Beaches; 2014
88
Information Box 10.
Newspaper articles concerning the Kangaroo Management Plan and
on-line community survey, 2015 – 2016
89
Information Box 11.
OEH / NPWS Living with Kangaroos brochure with illustration of the
‘Roo Roll’
90
9 BASELINE KANGAROO COUNTS
9.1 Kangaroo hot spot population counts and monitoring
As most information regarding kangaroo numbers on the north coast are anecdotal, this project
instigated kangaroo population counts at Heritage Park, to begin the collection of quantitative data
to inform future management.
9.1.1 Kangaroo count methods
Six locations were selected for systematic kangaroo counts (see Map 12) to establish baseline figures
for kangaroo populations at key kangaroo hot spots on the Northern Beaches. The counts were
undertaken by the same individuals and always at an optimal time for kangaroo foraging and
activity, i.e. morning or late afternoon.
Kangaroo counts adopted transect-based methods but varied with access and resources: Driven road
transects were used in urban areas (Heritage park, Avocado heights, Safety Beach and North-west
Woolgoolga), foot-based transects on headlands (Damerells / Look At Me Now headlands) and at
Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club and open transporter buggy transects at Darlington Beach Holiday
Park (Map 12). Total counts were undertaken (all kangaroos seen) as well as targeted counts within
the constraints of a Distance Sampling Technique (e.g. see Glass et al. 2015) Only the results from
total counts are presented here and refer to all independent kangaroos, i.e. including young at foot
but excluding fully-dependent pouch young.
91
Map 12. Six kangaroo count transect locations where baseline kangaroo counts were undertaken
during the development of the kangaroo management plan.
92
9.1.2 Heritage Park
Previous NPWS road-based kangaroo counts indicated a gradual increase in counted kangaroos over
the period 2007 – 2015 maximizing at 314 kangaroos in late 2014 (section 3.2).
The Heritage Park road-based transect is illustrated in Map 13 and count results are shown in Figure
24. Total kangaroos counted varied from 188 to 290 with little variation between morning and
afternoon counts.
Map 13. Road-based kangaroo count transect – Heritage Park
93
Figure 24. Kangaroo count results – “Heritage Park”
9.1.3 Avocado Heights
Avocado Heights road-based counts were undertaken immediately after Heritage Park counts as
they neighbour each other. The Avocado Heights road-based transect is illustrated in Map 14 and
count results are shown in Figure 25. Total kangaroos counted varied from 14 to 62 reflecting the
desirability of a detectability correction factor at this locality.
9.1.4 Damerells / Look At Me Now headlands
The Damerells / Look At Me Now headlands foot-based transect is illustrated in Map 15 and count
results are shown in Figure 26. Total kangaroos counted varied from 49 to 112.
9.1.5 North-west Woolgoolga
The North-west Woolgoolga road-based transect is illustrated in Map 16 and count results are
shown in Figure 27. Four counts were completed here and total kangaroos counted varied from 67
to 106. By far the majority of kangaroos counted here were typically located on remnant farmland to
the south of Newmans Road, an area where urban growth is planned for the future (see section 10).
9.1.6 Safety Beach – village & Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club
The golf course foot-based transect (Map 17) and the Safety Beach village road-based transect (Map
18) were generally undertaken one after the other, but the road transect was not completed at all
sampling sessions (e.g. April & June 2016). Total kangaroos counted varied from 86 to 107 on the
golf course and 26 to 38 in the village (Figure 28), 112 to 143 in total.
95
Figure 25. Kangaroo count results – “Avocado Heights”
Map 15. Foot-based kangaroo count transect – Damerells and Look At Me Now headlands.
96
Figure 26. Kangaroo count results – Damerells & Look At Me Now headlands
Map 16. Road-based kangaroo count transect – North-west Woolgoolga.
97
Figure 27. Kangaroo count results – North-west Woolgoolga
Map 17. Road-based kangaroo count transect – Safety Beach village.
99
Figure 28. Kangaroo count results – Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club & adjacent streets of Safety
Beach
9.1.7 Darlington Beach Holiday Park
The Darlington Holiday Park foot-based transect is illustrated in Map 19 and count results are shown
in Figure 29. Counts were undertaken with the assistance of park staff and open transport buggies.
Four counts were completed (December 2015) and May (2016) with total kangaroos counted
ranging from 60 to 73.
9.1.8 Speculation about kangaroo numbers on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
The figures reported here indicate a minimum of about 800 kangaroos from these 6 hot spots.
Additional populations exist at south-east Woolgoolga, Woolgoolga’s northern playing fields,
Mullaway-Arrawarra, Corindi Beach, Moonee Beach area and Sapphire-Korora (see Map 2 in section
1.2.2 and also section 10 dealing with Kangaroo Management Units). Given that a number of these
locations appear to support relatively small kangaroo populations at this stage a rough guess of 400
additional kangaroos may not be unreasonable. That would indicate a (speculative) minimum total
of 1,200 kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches as a rough estimate.
102
10 KANGAROO MANAGEMENT UNITS
For the purposes of this management plan 10 Kangaroo Management Units (KaMUs) have been
delineated on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (Map 20) based upon several factors:
• Known kangaroo hot spots at Heritage Park, Avocado Heights, Emerald Beach headlands,
Woolgoolga, Safety Beach and Darlington Beach Holiday Park;
• Emerging and potential kangaroo hotspots, as indicated by notable kangaroo occurrence at
Corindi Beach, Arrawarra, Mullaway, Sandy Beach, parts of Moonee Beach and Sapphire Beach –
Korora;
• The spatial extent of logged NPWS and WIRES kangaroo incidents (see section 4);
• potential kangaroo movement barriers or inhibitors such as the upgraded Pacific Highway,
Woolgoolga Creek and non-kangaroo habitats like dense forests and coastal heaths (the extent
to which such barriers and filters fragment and isolate kangaroo populations locally may be
revealed by targeted genetics relatedness research (e.g. Eldridge et al. 2010));
Each KaMU is different with regard to several factors:
• The extent of current kangaroo habitat, urban and rural lands and forested or otherwise
naturally vegetated lands;
• The area of proposed future urban growth, playing fields and open spaces that may facilitate
increases or decreases in the extent and availability of kangaroo habitat;
• The particular combination and intensity of kangaroo management issues;
• The extent to which it is connected or isolated from other KaMUs. Map 21 illustrates the broad
extent of habitat linkage between KaMUs as well as potential links across the Pacific Highway
courtesy of wildlife crossing tunnels and bridged creek crossings. Remote camera monitoring at
some of these tunnels has not demonstrated kangaroo crossings (Sandpiper Ecological 2016) but
research conducted elsewhere (e.g. Chachelle et al. 2016) shows that ecologically equivalent
Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) will make use of road underpasses and bridged
creek crossings to cross roads.
These aspects and issues are considered for each KaMU below. As a start Table 4 summarizes the
extent of broadly mapped kangaroo habitat classes (see section 6) within each KaMU, Table 5 lists
the number of mapped kangaroo incidents (see section 4) within each KaMU and Figure 30
illustrates this graphically. Table 6 provides a qualitative assessment of the intensity of the kangaroo
management issues, as discussed in section 4 and elsewhere, within each KaMU. This table also
assigns priority levels to the KaMUs based upon current understanding, extent and perceived
intensity of kangaroo management issues. The 10 KaMUs are considered below in that priority order
from highest priority (1) to lowest priority (3).
104
Map 21. Pacific Highway fauna crossings and broad potential kangaroos habitat in relation to 10
Kangaroo Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
105
Table 4. Area of broadly mapped kangaroo habitat classes within 10 Kangaroo Management Units
on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Kangaroo Management Unit Class 1 habitat
(ha)
Class 2 habitat
(ha)
Total habitat
(ha)
1. Corindi – Red Rock Road 513 - 513
2. Corindi Valley 299 1 300
3. Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park 148 - 148
4. Mullaway – Arrawarra Headland 292 - 292
5. Safety Beach – north-west Woolgoolga 442 - 442
6. Central – South Woolgoolga 414 - 414
7. Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake 631 12 643
8. Heritage Park – Avocado Heights 425 - 425
9. Moonee Beach – Forest Glen 475 - 475
10. Korora – Sapphire Beach 234 - 234
3,873 13 3,886
Table 5. Number of kangaroo incidents (from NPWS & WIRES databases) within 10 Kangaroo
Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Kangaroo Management Unit
Att
ack
s /
thre
ats
Mo
tor
ve
hic
le
inci
de
nts
Sic
k /
in
jure
d
Do
g a
tta
ck
To
tal
ka
ng
aro
o
inci
de
nts
1. Corindi – Red Rock Road - 32 - 1 36
2. Corindi Valley - 6 - - 7
3. Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park 6 11 6 1 25
4. Mullaway – Arrawarra Headland - 23 10 8 41
5. Safety Beach – north-west Woolgoolga 4 98 29 9 154
6. Central – South Woolgoolga 2 36 15 3 56
7. Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake 3 35 21 8 71
8. Heritage Park – Avocado Heights 25 83 91 11 221
9. Moonee Beach – Forest Glen - 31 7 4 42
10. Korora – Sapphire Beach - 8 1 - 10
Incidents outside KaMUs - 10 3 - 13
40 373 183 45 676
106
Figure 30. Relative proportions of four types of kangaroo incidents within 10 Kangaroo
Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
Two Kangaroo Priority Zones (KPZs) are mapped, where they occur, within the KaMUs. All Northern
Beaches schools and a Woolgoolga Aged Care Facility are delineated as KPZ 1 and those Northern
Beaches caravan parks / holiday parks where kangaroo issues are either current or possible are
delineated as KPZ 2. Identification as priority zones offers a basis for these properties to receive
support from the Kangaroo Management Committee, and associated agencies, relating to kangaroo
management issues such as applications for kangaroo awareness and safety training or strategic
fencing should the owners or managers seek it.
107
Table 6. Perceived scale of management issues within 10 Kangaroo Management Units on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches (listed north to south).
(KaMUs: CB-RR: Corindi Beach-Red Rock Road; CorVa: Corindi Valley; A-DP-LP: Arrawarra-Darlington Park-Lorikeet Park; M-AH: Mullaway-Arrawarra Headland;
SB-nwW: Safety Beach-north-west Woolgoolga; c-sW: Central-south Woolgoolga; EB-SB-H: Emerald Beach-Sandy Beach-Hearnes Lake;
HP-AH: Heritage Park-Avocado Heights: MB-FG: Moonee Beach-Forest Glen; K-SB: Korora-Sapphire Beach
108
10.1 Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Unit
One Priority 1 KaMU is identified at this stage, Heritage Park – Avocado Heights, due to the ongoing
presence of multiple highly significant kangaroo management issues at the time of writing this plan
(see sections 4 & 8 and also Table 6).
10.1.1 Heritage Park – Avocado Heights
Referred to locally as Heritage Park and Avocado Heights these large lot residential areas are
formally part of Moonee Beach. They are considered as one KaMU because they are immediately
adjacent to each other (Map 21) and preliminary results of kangaroo GPS tracking reveal that
kangaroos move between the two areas (Tim Henderson personal communication).
The KaMU is immediately adjacent to Orara East State Forest and is bounded to the east by the
Pacific Highway and the associated Solitary Islands Way. The highway and associated fauna fencing
form a barrier to kangaroo movement but kangaroos may occasionally cross the highway at a
bridged creek crossing immediately to the south of this KaMU and within the Moonee Beach –
Forest Glen KMU (Map 21).
This KaMU offers ideal kangaroo habitat with vast expanses of grass and shelter associated with
houses and remnant vegetation and a potential source habitat in the adjacent state forest. Gradual
infilling of lots and associated incremental property perimeter fencing are impacting kangaroo
habitat (see below).
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 22, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 425 ha (Table 4);
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Very high;
• Future urban growth areas: Nil (Map 22);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 400+ (300+ Heritage Park, <100 Avocado Heights);
• Population trajectory: At or near maximum & expected to decline with infilling development and
fencing displacing animals;
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 22)
• Nil.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• Highest incidence of kangaroo attacks (particularly Heritage Park);
• High incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos as well as sick / injured
kangaroos;
• There is also a high number of logged dog attacks on kangaroos;
109
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a low to moderate issue here (Table 6)
because these large lot residential areas are already developed. Advocacy for strategic fencing
may ameliorate some ongoing issues (see management direction).
Community engagement issues
• The majority of residents feel positive towards kangaroos but a number of people, typically
those who have experienced kangaroo attack first hand, feel threatened by kangaroos (see
section 8).
• When presented with population control options non-lethal methods were universally favoured
by residents.
• Perimeter property fencing is a polarising issue, particularly at Heritage Park, where many
property owners have installed tall meshed fencing intended to exclude kangaroos from their
entire property. Others, especially longer term residents, oppose fencing and refer to a pre-
existing covenant that excluded fencing from early stages of the development at Heritage Park;
any previous fencing covenant has not been enforced or regulated. Perimeter fencing is reducing
the overall available space for kangaroos and is displacing them to unfenced areas and
properties.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are considered to be in need of management intervention across the KaMU mainly due to
their negative social impacts.
A gradual reduction in the population, to a more sustainable level, is desirable. This may be achieved
initially through a kangaroo fertility control program that will be trialled at Heritage Park in the near
future. This program will need ongoing funding and resourcing to achieve a long term solution.
The fencing issue can be addressed, to some extent, through an education program promoting more
strategic approaches to fencing such as excluding kangaroos from smaller sections of properties, for
example high use areas, rather than from entire properties. Strategic planning by adjoining property
owners could facilitate kangaroo use and movement outside of fenced areas. Less grass and more
shrubs and sedges in fenced areas could also discourage kangaroos from parts of properties.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
111
10.2 Priority 2 Kangaroo Management Units
Four Priority 2 KaMUs have been identified due to the presence of one highly significant kangaroo
management issue at the time of writing (see sections 4 & 8 and also Table 6).
10.2.1 Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park
This KaMU comprises holiday parks, rural lands and urban lots including the village of Arrawarra
(Map 23), Darlington Beach Holiday Park and Lorikeet Tourist Park (e.g. Appendix 4).
Grassy expanses, abundant shelter and freely available water within the grounds of the two holiday
parks offer excellent kangaroo habitat. The balance of the KaMU includes marginal to good kangaroo
habitat on rural lots and within peri-urban areas (Map 23).
The KaMU is bounded to the west by the Pacific Highway which, at the time of writing was in the
early stages of upgrading. Prior to the upgrade kangaroos would have crossed the old highway
relatively frequently but the new highway may well become a barrier to kangaroo movement. A
bridged crossing of Arrawarra Creek to the immediate south of the KaMU may offer potential for
occasional kangaroo crossings (Map 20). The KaMU is bounded to the west by a narrow stretch of
the Coffs Coast Regional Park and then the Pacific Ocean (Map 23).
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 23, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 148 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Very high within holiday parks, low elsewhere;
• Future urban growth areas: small area associated with the village of Arrawarra;
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 120+ (70+ Darlington Park, 30+ Lorikeet Park, 20+
elsewhere);
• Population trajectory: At or near maximum in holiday parks, potential increases with any
promotion of grassy open spaces elsewhere;
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 23)
• Darlington Beach holiday park and Lorikeet Tourist Park are Priority 2 Kangaroo Management
Zones. This zoning may facilitate support through the Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS
for targeted kangaroo awareness training or aid funding appeals for strategic fencing (See
section 8.5.3).
112
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• High incidence of kangaroo attacks (reports are focused from Darlington Beach Holiday Park);
• High number of dog attacks on kangaroos;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a moderate issue here (Table 6). There is
the potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth around Arrawarra
Village (Map 23).
Community engagement issues
• Direct community engagement was not undertaken with residents of this KaMU during plan
development but managers of the two holiday parks, where kangaroo issues are current, were
consulted;
• Park managers are positive towards kangaroos as they are a feature that many residents and
visitors find highly appealing;
• The feeding of kangaroos by a small number of residents and visitors, in direct contravention of
kangaroo awareness information provided to them, has been identified as a major issue by park
managers. This leads directly to kangaroo habituation and food-seeking behaviour which can
become aggressive;
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are considered to be in need of management intervention within the two holiday parks in
the north of the KaMU. At present low kangaroo numbers in the south of the KaMU do not present
management issues.
A gradual reduction in the population, to a more sustainable level, is desirable within the holiday
parks. This may be achieved initially through a kangaroo fertility control program that will be trialled
at Darlington Beach Holiday Park in the near future. This program will need ongoing funding and
resourcing to achieve a long term solution with park owners being the logical source of resources.
Kangaroo awareness and safety education should continue as a focus within the holiday parks and
both residents and visitors need constant reminders as to the negative and potentially dangerous
results of feeding kangaroos. NPWS is in a position to provide workshops but this is dependent upon
funding from park owners and managers.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
114
10.2.2 Safety Beach – north-western Woolgoolga
This diverse KaMU comprises urban areas of Safety Beach and Woolgoolga, large lot urban areas of
western Woolgoolga, rural holdings, a golf course, a high school, playing fields and natural and semi-
natural areas (Map 24).
The KaMU is bounded to the west by the upgraded Pacific Highway, to the north by Darkum Creek,
the south by Woolgoolga Creek and the east by the Pacific Ocean (Map 24).
The Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club golf course offers ideal kangaroo habitat and appears to be a
source of kangaroos that also inhabit the streets of Safety Beach in high numbers. Kangaroo
numbers appear to have increased substantially in urban and peri-urban Woolgoolga in recent years.
A large kangaroo sub-populations inhabits open grassy habitats associated with rural grazing lands
and new playing fields areas west of Safety Beach and the Solitary Islands Way (map 24).
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 24, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 442 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: High to very high within urban Safety Beach and Woolgoolga,
western Woolgoolga (including new playing fields areas), Woolgoolga Headland and on the
Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club golf course. Low within coastal scrub habitats of Coffs Coast
Regional Park;
• Future urban growth areas: Extensive current and future urban growth areas, particularly west
of the Solitary Islands Way (the old highway);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 300+ (100+ Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club golf course, 40+
Safety Beach village, 110+ north-western Woolgoolga, 50+ urban Woolgoolga);
• Population trajectory: Numbers may be stable in the golf course – Safety Beach precinct but
appear to be increasing in urban and peri-urban Woolgoolga including an area of new playing
fields west of Safety Beach (Map 24).
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 24)
• Woolgoolga High School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zone. This zoning may facilitate
support through the Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo awareness
training or aid funding appeals for strategic fencing if the need arises.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• High incidence of kangaroo attacks (particularly in the large lot residential area of north-western
Woolgoolga);
• High incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos. The KaMU is bisected by the
Solitary Islands Way (the old highway) which has been a source of many road accidents involving
kangaroos over the years; this is less of an issue now that Woolgoolga has been by-passed and
traffic flows are reduced although accidents within the urban areas are still prevalent.
115
• Relatively high number of sick / injured kangaroos and dog attacks on kangaroos;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a significant issue here (Table 6). There is
the very high potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth and
playing fields management in Woolgoolga precincts.
Community engagement issues
• The majority of residents feel positive towards kangaroos but many Woolgoolga people
indicated a desire for more knowledge regarding kangaroo awareness and safety;
• The majority of Safety Beach residents were more concerned with dog attacks on kangaroos
than with personal safety issues although a high incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving
kangaroos highlights a key issue at Safety Beach;
• When presented with population control options non-lethal methods were universally favoured
by residents.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are considered to be in need of management intervention across much of the KaMU
mainly due to their negative social impacts.
A gradual reduction in the population, to a more sustainable level, is desirable. This area is not part
of any planned kangaroo fertility control trials at this stage but consideration should be given to
developer-funded schemes to extend the approach into new development areas if planned trial
programs prove successful and operationally achievable. A kangaroo fertility control program will
need ongoing funding and resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environment Levy is
one potential candidate source (see sections 11 & 12).
Driver kangaroo awareness needs to be increased in the Safety Beach and Woolgoolga areas through
combinations of increased signage and community engagement.
Responsible dog ownership needs to be promoted to residents of this KaMU, possibly through the
provision of education materials at times of dog registration and through local Vets.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
117
10.2.3 Central-southern Woolgoolga
This KaMU includes much of urban Woolgoolga along with industrial zones, a sewerage treatment
plant (seemingly fenced to a level that excludes kangaroos), two primary schools, caravan parks,
playing fields and semi-natural areas (Map 25).
The KaMU is bounded to the west by the upgraded Pacific Highway, to the north by Woolgoolga
Creek, the south by Double Crossing Creek and the east by the Pacific Ocean (Map 25). There may be
limited movement potential for kangaroos between this KaMU and that to its north but the highway
may now present a significant barrier to western movement (Map 21).
Kangaroo numbers appear to have increased in urban Woolgoolga in recent years.
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 25, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 414 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Moderate overall but low in more marginal habitats including
unimproved rural lands and semi-natural habitats of Coffs Coast Regional Park. A small kangaroo
population (e.g. roughly 20 animals) resides in and around the High Street sports fields (Map 25)
and appears to use suburban grassy street verges to move and forage between there and the
grassy Woolgoolga Headland. Observations, including the ongoing occurrence of thick kangaroo
grass swards on Woolgoolga Headland indicate kangaroo numbers there to be at much lower
densities than those at Emerald Beach headlands where the kangaroos grass is grazed very low
(see section 10.2.4);
• Future urban growth areas: Extensive current and future urban growth areas, particularly in
western precincts (Map 25);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 50+ . A large kangaroo population exists on current rural
lands (zoned for future urban growth) to the immediate north-west of this KaMU across
Woolgoolga Creek. This area could well become a source of kangaroos, which could easily swim
across the creek, for this KaMU under future development scenarios;
• Population trajectory: Numbers may be increasing in urban / peri-urban Woolgoolga.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 25)
• Woolgoolga Public School and St Francis Xavier Catholic Primary are Priority 1 Kangaroo
Management Zones and Woolgoolga Beach Caravan Park and Sunset Caravan Parks are Priority 2
Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 25). These zonings may facilitate support through the
Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo awareness training or aid
funding appeals for strategic fencing if the need arises (See section 8.5.2). St Francis Xavier
Catholic Primary already has a purpose-built kangaroo exclusion fence around much of its
perimeter which offers a potential model for other schools (see Appendix 1).
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• Two recorded kangaroo attacks;
118
Moderate incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos but recent information suggests
a spike in accidents and near-accidents involving kangaroos, particularly along Beach Street. Pullen
Street appears to be another black spot for kangaroo-related motor vehicle accidents (map 25).
• A moderate number of sick / injured kangaroos and dog attacks on kangaroos but unreported
incidents may also be high;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a significant issue here (Table 6). There is
the high potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth in this and
the adjoining KaMU (Map 25).
Community engagement issues
• The majority of residents feel positive towards kangaroos but many Woolgoolga people
indicated a desire for more knowledge regarding kangaroo awareness and safety;
• Community feedback indicated growing concern relating to kangaroo-related motor vehicle
accidents as well as dogs chasing kangaroos;
• When presented with population control options non-lethal methods were universally favoured
by residents.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are considered to be in need of management intervention within urban Woolgoolga due
to negative social impacts.
A gradual reduction in the population, to a more sustainable level, is desirable. This area is not part
of any planned kangaroo fertility control trials at this stage but consideration should be given to
developer-funded schemes to extend the approach into new development areas if it is successfully
trialled elsewhere. A kangaroo fertility control program will need ongoing funding and resourcing to
achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environment Levy is one potential source (see sections 11 &
12).
Driver kangaroo awareness needs to be increased in the Safety Beach and Woolgoolga areas through
combinations of increased signage and community engagement.
Responsible dog ownership needs to be promoted to residents of this KaMU, possibly through the
provision of education materials at times of dog registration and through local Vets.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
120
10.2.4 Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake
This KaMU includes two Northern Beaches villages, Emerald Beach and Sandy Beach as well as a
proposed urban precinct at Hearnes Lake. The KaMU includes a primary school, a holiday park and
expanses of natural and semi-natural areas (Map 26).
The KaMU is bisected by the upgraded Pacific Highway and associated fauna exclusion fencing. Semi-
natural habitat under the highway bridge at Double Crossing Creek may enable kangaroos to cross
(Map 21). Fauna highway crossing structures (culverts) have been installed elsewhere (Map 21) but
their small size (<1m height) presumably limits any use by kangaroos. The KaMU is bounded to the
north by Double Crossing Creek and the east by the Pacific Ocean (Map 26). The southern and
western boundaries are is ill-defined as at least marginal kangaroo habitat probably extends further
west and south than is shown in Map 26.
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 26, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 643 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Patchy with high densities occurring on the Emerald Beach
headlands, and nearby streets as well as the Coffs Harbour Gun Club but low densities elsewhere
at this stage. Numbers at Emerald Beach appear to have increased substantially since the
headlands were declared formal reserves in the late 1990’s;
• Future urban growth areas: Extensive current and future urban growth areas at Emerald Beach,
Hearnes lake and north of Sandy Beach (Map 26);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 170+ (100+ on Damerells and Look At Me Now Headlands,
50+ on and around Coffs Harbour Gun Club and maybe 20+ across the balance of the KaMU;
• Population trajectory: Numbers may be increasing in peri-urban locations including Sandy Beach
and new urban growth areas at Emerald Beach.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 26)
• Sandy Beach Public School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zones and Emerald Beach
Holiday Park is a Priority 2 Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 24). Both report only low level
current kangaroo occurrence but these zonings may engender support through the Kangaroo
Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo awareness training or aid funding appeals
for strategic fencing if the need arises (See section 8.5.2).
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• Three recorded kangaroo attacks;
• Moderate incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos;
• A moderate number of sick / injured kangaroos and dog attacks on kangaroos but unreported
incidents may also be high;
121
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a significant issue here (Table 6). There is
the high potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth in this KaMU;
• Kangaroo over-grazing within the endangered grassy headland habitats on Damerells and Look
At Me Now headlands is a significant issue – this has been discussed elsewhere (see section
4.3.1). Kangaroos are considered to be in need of management intervention on these headlands
(Table 6) due to their environmental impacts on the threatened headland vegetation
communities.
Community engagement issues
• The vast majority of residents feel positive towards kangaroos but some are concerned about
localized impacts such as kangaroos browsing and trampling gardens;
• Community feedback indicated growing concern relating to domestic dogs chasing kangaroos on
reserved headlands and also compromising kangaroo movements between reserved lands.
Unleashed dogs are a common occurrence on Emerald Main Beach and nearby reserves where
they are formally banned;
• When presented with population control options non-lethal methods were universally favoured
by residents.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are considered to be in need of management intervention within parts of this KaMU due
to their environmental impact of over-grazing within an endangered ecological community.
A gradual reduction in the kangaroo population at Emerald Beach, to a more sustainable level, is
desirable. This area is part of a planned kangaroo fertility control trial, pending funding levels. If the
planned trial is successful a kangaroo fertility control program will need ongoing funding and
resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environmental Levy is a potential source (see
sections 11 & 12).
Responsible dog ownership needs to be promoted to Emerald Beach residents as well as visitors to
the reserved headlands, possibly through the provision of education materials at times of dog
registration as well as through local Vets and prominent signage at headland entry points.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information, as well as gardening ideas to deter kangaroo grazing and trampling. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
123
10.3 Priority 3 Kangaroo management Units
Five Priority 2 KaMUs have been identified (Table 6). These are areas where kangaroo incidents
appear to be increasing or where future urban growth has the potential to lead to peri-urban
kangaroo increases.
10.3.1 Corindi Beach – Red Rock Road
This KaMU is centred upon the village of Corindi Beach, with a primary school, a holiday park and a
sports field, but extends north to encompass locations of kangaroo motor vehicle accidents along
the highway and the Red Rock Road (Map 27).
The Pacific Highway impacts the western parts of this KaMU and at the time of writing was
undergoing upgrading to a four lane carriageway complete with fauna exclusion fencing. Semi-
natural habitat retained or regenerated under the upgraded bridge over the Corindi River will offer a
potential crossing point for kangaroos linking the KaMU to potential habitats westwards (Map 21).
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 27, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 513 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Overall low but there are indications of increases in and
around the Corindi Beach village and along Red Rock Road.
• Future urban growth areas: Continued growth is planned around Corindi Beach presenting
potential to inadvertently increase kangaroo habitats (Map 27);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 20+;
• Population trajectory: Numbers may be increasing in and around peri-urban Corindi Beach.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 27)
• Corindi Beach Public School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zones, a zoning that may
facilitate support through the Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo
awareness training or aid funding appeals for strategic fencing if the need arises (See section
8.5.2) if the need arises. Corindi Beach Caravan Park is not included within priority kangaroo
zoning at this stage due to very low occurrence of kangaroos; it should be added to this zoning if
incidents are reported.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• No recorded kangaroo attacks;
• Moderate incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos;
• One reported dog attack on kangaroos but likely to be more that have not been reported;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a moderate issue here (Table 6). There is
the some potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth;
124
Community engagement issues
• The local community was not directly engaged during the kangaroo planning project.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are not considered to be in need of management intervention within this KaMU.
No kangaroo population control is recommended but if kangaroo issues become more prevalent,
and the kangaroo fertility control program planned for elsewhere on the Northern Beaches is
successful, then local application could be looked at. That would require ongoing funding and
resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environmental Levy could be a funding source
(see sections 11 & 12).
Responsible dog ownership needs to be promoted to Corindi Beach residents as well as visitors to
the area, possibly through the provision of education materials at times of dog registration as well as
through local Vets.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
126
10.3.2 Corindi Valley
This KaMU is west of the Pacific Highway and is centred upon a handful of kangaroo-related motor
vehicle accidents along Sherwood Creek Road (Map 28). The KaMU is comprised of rural lands
associated with the Corindi River Valley.
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 28, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 299 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Low;
• Future urban growth areas: Nil;
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 20+;
• Population trajectory: Assumed stable at this stage.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 28)
• Nil.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• No recorded kangaroo attacks and no other significant kangaroo management issues at the time
of writing (Table 6) but included as a KaMU due to a moderate incidence of motor vehicle
accidents involving kangaroos along Sherwood Creek Road.
Community engagement issues
• The local community was not directly engaged during the kangaroo planning project.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are not considered to be in need of management intervention within this KaMU.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information and signage to help them live and drive as safely as possible within kangaroo habitats.
Inclusion with Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Kangaroo awareness signage should be installed along Sherwood creek Road.
128
10.3.3 Mullaway – Arrawarra Headland
This KaMU is centred upon the villages of Mullaway and Arrawarra Headland and includes a primary
school and rural to peri-urban lands. A large proportion of the KaMU is occupied by reserved lands
of Garby Nature Reserve and Coffs Coast Regional Park (Map 29).
The KaMU is bordered to the west by the old Pacific Highway, now referred to as the Solitary Island
Way, to the east by the Pacific Ocean, to the north by Arrawarra Creek and the south by Darkum
Creek (Map 29). Further west the upgraded Pacific Highway forms a barrier but fauna structures, in
the form of culverts may offer potential crossing points. Semi-natural habitats under the upgraded
Arrawarra Creek bridge also offer a highway crossing to the nearby north (Map 21).
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 29, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 299 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Overall low but there are indications of increases in and
around Mullaway.
• Future urban growth areas: Growth potential is limited but some is planned around Mullaway
and Arrawarra Headland (Map 29);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 30+;
• Population trajectory: Numbers may be increasing in and around peri-urban Mullaway and
nearby semi-rural areas.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 27)
• Mullaway Public School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zones, a zoning that may facilitate
support through the Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo awareness
training or aid funding appeals for strategic fencing if the need arises (See section 8.5.2) if the
need arises. Kangaroos sometimes occur within the school grounds. The local caravan park is not
included within priority kangaroo zoning as kangaroos are infrequently recorded there.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• No recorded kangaroo attacks;
• Moderate incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos as well as sick and injured
kangaroos;
• A relatively high incidence of dog attacks on kangaroos;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a moderate issue here (Table 6). There is
some potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth;
Community engagement issues
• The local community was not directly engaged during the kangaroo planning project.
129
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are not considered to be in need of management intervention within this KaMU.
No kangaroo population control is recommended but if kangaroo issues become more prevalent,
and the kangaroo fertility control program planned for elsewhere on the Northern Beaches is
successful, then local application could be looked at. That would require ongoing funding and
resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environment Levy is a potential funding source
(see sections 11 & 12).
Responsible dog ownership needs to be promoted to residents of the KaMU as well as visitors to the
area, possibly through the provision of education materials at times of dog registration as well as
through local Vets.
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
10.3.4 Moonee Beach – Forest Glen
A diverse KaMU that includes the village of Moonee Beach as well as “Forest Glen”, a large lot
subdivision that is formally part of Moonee Beach but, like Heritage Park, is often referred to by its
locally recognized name. The KaMU includes large expanses zoned for urban growth, some already
approved, as well as an area planned for future sporting fields (Map 30); although kangaroo-related
issues are currently at a low level developments within these precincts could result in elevated
kangaroo populations if adequate strategic planning is not enacted.
The upgraded Pacific Highway bisects the KaMU (Map30) and associated fauna fencing has created a
significant barrier to the movement of terrestrial fauna. Semi-natural habitats beneath the bridges
over Cunnighams Creek and Skinners Creek offer scope for kangaroo highway crossings (see Map
21).
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 30, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 474 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Overall low but there are indications of increases in and
around semi-cleared locations immediately east and west of the highway. Interestingly the
Forest Glen estate, which is geographically close to Heritage Park and bears many similarities to
it in terms of character, vegetation extent, density of people and proximity to a state forest,
appears to support very few kangaroos at this time; the reasons for this remain unclear;
• Future urban growth areas: There are large areas of future urban growth planned within the
KaMU (Map 30);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 30+;
131
Population trajectory: Numbers may be relatively stable at present but there is high potential for
kangaroo population increases associated with future urban areas and playing fields developments.
The KaMU is in close proximity Heritage Park – Avocado Heights KaMU (Map 20) which is a source of
potential kangaroo immigrants if favourable habitats are created.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 30)
• Moonee Beach Caravan Park is a Priority 2 Kangaroo Management Zone. This zoning may
facilitate support through the Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo
awareness training or aid funding appeals for strategic fencing if the need arises (See section
8.5.3) if the need arises.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• No recorded kangaroo attacks;
• Moderate incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos, including on-going
kangaroo deaths on the upgraded Pacific Highway, presumably due to gaps in the fauna
exclusion fencing;
• Low to moderate incidences of sick and injured kangaroos and dog attacks on kangaroos;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated is an important issue here (Table 6). There is
high potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth;
Community engagement issues
• The local community was not directly engaged during the kangaroo planning project.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are not considered to be in need of management intervention within this KaMU at this
stage.
No kangaroo population control is recommended but if kangaroo issues become more prevalent,
and the kangaroo fertility control program planned for elsewhere on the Northern Beaches is
successful, then local application could be looked at. That would require ongoing funding and
resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environment Levy is a potential funding source
(see sections 11 & 12).
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
133
10.3.5 Korora – Sapphire Beach
This KaMU is centred upon the urbanized coastal strip encompassing Korora and Sapphire Beach but
also includes rural-residential areas to the west of the Pacific Highway (Map 31). It includes a
primary school and a holiday park and extends as far south as documented records of kangaroo
incidents go (Map 31).
The Pacific Highway bisects the KaMU but is not equipped with fauna fencing south of Sapphire
Beach so kangaroos occasionally attempt to cross the highway, sometimes leading to collisions with
motor vehicles, particularly trucks at night. This KaMU is well connected to potential kangaroo
habitats further west but populations there are low at this stage.
Kangaroo habitat & populations (see Table 4, Map 31, section 9)
• Potential kangaroo habitat: 234 ha;
• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Low.
• Future urban growth areas: There is still some potential for urban infilling in this area (Map 31);
• Rough kangaroo population estimate: 20+;
• Population trajectory: Numbers appear relatively stable at this time.
Priority Kangaroo Management Zones (Map 31)
• Korora Public School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zones, a zoning that may facilitate
support through the Kangaroo Steering Committee and NPWS for targeted kangaroo awareness
training or aid funding appeals for strategic fencing if the need arises (See section 8.5.2) if the
need arises. Split Solitary Caravan Park is not included within priority kangaroo zoning at this
stage due to the lack of kangaroo occurrence there.
Key kangaroo issues (see Tables 5 & 6, Figure 30)
• No recorded kangaroo attacks;
• Low incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos and also low incidence of sick /
injured kangaroos;
• Council strategic planning and management is rated as a moderate issue here (Table 6). There is
some potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth and
development in the area.
Community engagement issues
• The local community was not directly engaged during the kangaroo planning project.
Management direction (also see sections 11 & 12)
Kangaroos are not considered to be in need of management intervention within this KaMU.
134
No kangaroo population control is recommended but if kangaroo issues become more prevalent,
and the kangaroo fertility control program planned for elsewhere on the Northern Beaches is
successful, then local application could be looked at. That would require ongoing funding and
resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environment Levy is a potential funding source
(see sections 11 & 12).
Residents, and particularly new residents, should be supplied with kangaroo awareness and safety
information to help them live and recreate as safely as possible with kangaroos. Inclusion with
Council rates notices may be an appropriate vehicle for delivery of this information.
Strategic Council planning needs to embed consideration of kangaroo issues in development control
planning and address management approaches and actions outlines in sections 11 & 12.
136
11 KANGAROO MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND OPTIONS
A number of management approaches and options have been developed, and many initiated, to
address the kangaroo issues that have been identified in this plan (section 4). These approaches are
outlined below with some discussion of background material deemed relevant to the plan. The
broad kangaroo management approaches outlined here form the basis for development of kangaroo
management actions in section 12.
Figure 31 illustrates how the derived kangaroo management approaches and options relate to, and
flow from, identified kangaroo management issues.
11.1 Community engagement & education
An engaged and educated community will go a long way to resolving kangaroo management issues
and, as outlined above (sections 2 & 8), community engagement has formed the basis for the
development of this management plan. Proactive community engagement and education will
continue as a cornerstone of kangaroo management approaches across Coffs Harbour LGA.
As illustrated in Figure 31 this will entail multiple actions including targeted workshops, school-based
kangaroo awareness and safety programs, enhanced ‘Living with kangaroos’ applications and
kangaroo awareness signage, potential citizen science programs and ongoing liaison with WIRES and
other key kangaroo stakeholders.
It will be important to monitor community attitudes in response to flow on effects of kangaroo
management actions applied in future. By re-applying the on-line community survey, for example,
any changes in attitudes can be assessed and used to adapt and refine management approaches and
actions.
11.1.1 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee
An ongoing and enhanced role for the Kangaroo Management Committee is a vital component of
community engagement and education. Enhancement should include consideration of the expansion
of the committee to include more community representatives from priority Kangaroo Management
Units. This will provide more localized context and perspective as well as better feedback to
community groups and residents. It is considered that more regular feedback to the committee from
key stakeholders (WIRES, NPWS, and CHCC) and researchers will keep agendas focused and relevant
and also provide adaptive feedback relating to applied kangaroo management actions.
11.2 Kangaroo population information
Systematic kangaroo population counts have been undertaken at a number of kangaroo hot spots
(see section 9). This provides baseline figures for kangaroo populations that will be important in
measuring responses to applied management actions. It is therefore important that seasonal
kangaroo counts are maintained at Heritage Park, Avocado Heights, Emerald Beach headlands,
north-west Woolgoolga, Safety Beach village, Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club and Darlington Holiday
Park. Other areas may need to be included if issues escalate (e.g. Corindi Beach, Mullaway,
Arrawarra, other parts of Woolgoolga, Sandy Beach, Moonee Beach and Sapphire Beach.
137
Figure 31. Kangaroo management approaches and options flowing from identified kangaroo
management issues.
138
11.3 Indirect kangaroo management measures
Indirect kangaroo management approaches address drivers of kangaroo population increases (e.g.
uninformed urban planning) and potential ways to ameliorate or mitigate kangaroo issues.
11.3.1 Coffs Harbour Council strategic planning and open space management
As outlined in section 4, urban and peri-urban planning undertaken without consideration of
kangaroo management issues has the potential to favour kangaroo population growth, sometimes
leading to kangaroo populations in need of management intervention and associated human –
kangaroo conflict. Similarly, uninformed management of community open spaces including sports
playing fields and parklands can also enhance kangaroo habitats.
Action relating to kangaroo management is not subject to statutory drivers so authorities are
unlikely to act unless inaction carries significant consequences. Section 4 of this plan outlines and
discusses kangaroo management issues as they apply to peri-urban Coffs Harbour locations. It has
been established that at least some of these issues are locally significant with impacts likely to
translate into significant costs, including social, economic and animal welfare costs over the long
term. If kangaroo management issues are deemed significant and urban planning and development
can potentially exacerbate these issues then development planning should account for them in
directing or regulating approaches to urban development and open space management. Possible
approaches include:
• Incorporation of kangaroo planning considerations within Development Control Plans that
correspond with identified Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10) including the
consideration of developer-sponsored schemes for kangaroo fencing, landscaping, movement
corridors and possibly fertility control (contraception) programs should they be found to be
successful;
• Requiring developers to consider peri-urban kangaroos and kangaroo habitats when planning
and assessing the impacts of proposals within mapped Kangaroo Management Units (section
10). Consideration will include strategic clearing to minimize open grassy habitats, strategic
fencing to exclude kangaroos from human high use areas (e.g. playgrounds) or to direct
kangaroos around developments;
• Open space managers should plan and design gardening, landscaping and mowing programs to
minimize the proliferation of favourable kangaroo habitats within mapped Kangaroo
Management Units (section 10). That will include minimizing productive mown grassy areas and
maximizing sedge and shrub plantings;
• Provision of support to applications of funding assistance for strategic kangaroo fencing in
Kangaroo Priority Zones 1 (schools on the Northern Beaches) and 2 (caravan parks and holiday
parks on the Northern Beaches) (see section 10 and 11.3.2).
11.3.2 Promotion of strategic kangaroo exclusion fencing
Community engagement undertaken in the development of this plan highlighted the issue of
kangaroo-proof fencing to be highly contentious among residents of peri-urban Coffs Harbour
139
locations (see section 8). Some people favour perimeter fencing to exclude kangaroos from their
property entirely, while others prefer to allow kangaroos freedom of movement.
This management plan promotes the strategic use of fencing to largely exclude kangaroos from high
human use areas like school grounds (see Appendix 2) or children’s play and family recreation areas
within private properties.
It is conceivable that strategic fencing could be designed and coordinated within development areas
supporting kangaroos, or between neighbouring properties on a less formal basis, to provide
kangaroo movement corridors through peri-urban areas but away from human high-use areas.
Guidelines could be formulated (facilitated by the Kangaroo Steering Committee see section 12.2) to
promote these approaches.
11.3.3 Promotion of kangaroo-unfriendly gardening and landscaping
While kangaroos are attracted to forage and rest within gardens or landscapes providing expansive
productive grassy areas they may be less attracted to landscapes and gardens that are more
strategically designed to feature less grass and more undesirable features such as sedges, rockeries,
ferneries, gravels and shrubby ground covers. Unpalatable plants such as sedges (e.g. Lomandra,
Dianella and Cyperus species) are suited to this purpose along with aromatic and pungent ground
covers and small shrubs (e.g. many native Grevillea, Callistemon, Eremophila species as well as
aromatic herbs like Lavender and Rosemary). In addition tussock forming grasses, of which there are
many examples, are less kangaroo-friendly than prostrate and mat-forming grasses. If grassy open
space reserves are desired then a mowing regime providing for longer, less manicured grass may be
less desirable to kangaroos. Specialty nurseries may offer more advice in this regard.
Urban and peri-urban properties can easily incorporate these ‘kangaroo-unfriendly’ landscaping and
gardening approaches but they could also be incorporated into larger scale landscaping and open-
space design and management undertaken by new developments, large land holders (i.e. schools
and caravan parks) or Council. A proviso here is that bush fire regulations are adhered to.
Another indirect approach of relevance here is the use of auditory and olfactory (smell) kangaroo
repellents and deterrents in gardening and landscaping. Various products have been used in this way
including dingo urine and high frequency auditory repellents but their efficacy appears uncertain.
Habituation may occur with any single deterrent and using a range of options and varying their
application is usually recommended.
Guidelines could be formulated (facilitated by the Kangaroo Steering Committee see section 12.2) to
promote kangaroo-unfriendly gardening and landscaping approaches.
11.3.4 Enhanced traffic calming within kangaroo hot spots
Vehicle accidents involving kangaroos are a significant issue on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
(see sections 4 & 8). On-line survey results (section 8) showed that people supported the installation
of kangaroo awareness signage as a traffic calming measure within kangaroo hot spots such as
Safety Beach, Woolgoolga and Heritage Park at least. Other traffic calming measures received less
support but may be applicable in certain locations, for example roundabouts, chicanes, and
enhanced street lighting.
140
11.3.5 Promotion of responsible dog ownership
Community engagement (section 8) highlighted a significant level of concern among Northern
Beaches residents relating to domestic dog attacks on kangaroos in peri-urban areas. The promotion
of responsible dog ownership is an aspect of community engagement and education but it may be
facilitated by the formulation of guidelines (potentially facilitated by the Kangaroo management
committee) targeting dog owners.
11.4 Direct intervention- aggressive individuals
When notified of a kangaroo attack on a person, or serious threatening behaviour by a kangaroo
towards a person, the NPWS is required to undertake action according to its ‘NPWS Policy &
Procedures for Managing Kangaroos that Pose a Risk to Public Safety’. This document provides a
framework for OEH Parks and Wildlife Group officers to use when responding to requests from the
community to assist with managing interactions with kangaroos that pose a risk to public safety. The
policy and procedures aim to enhance tolerance and promotes the use of non-lethal measures
before any lethal measures are approved. Taking an evidence-based approach, and using case-by-
case assessments, NPWS may authorise harm of kangaroos in a manner consistent with conservation
and animal welfare obligations. This plan supports the ongoing enactment of this policy.
11.5 Direct intervention- population control
Where kangaroos are demonstrably in need of management intervention, as indicated by negative
impacts on people, the kangaroos themselves or other biodiversity elements (see sections 4, 7 & 8),
some form of direct population control is required (Adderton Herbert 2004, Coulson 2007, Herbert
et al. 2010). Three methods are currently available, fertility control, translocations and culling
(Territory and Municipal Services 2010, Richardson 2012).
This management plan has demonstrated that kangaroos are currently in need of management
intervention within five identified Kangaroo Management Units (section 10). The results of targeted
community engagement, kangaroo data collation and kangaroo population counts provide the basis
for an adaptive management approach (as recommended by Coulson 2007) whereby local kangaroo
populations can be manipulated and responses in the level of the identified problems can be
measured. This approach addresses immediate concerns and at the same time, generates data to
help clarify the relationship between the problem and the population.
The Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches communities have indicated a clear preference for non-lethal
population control methods over lethal methods (see section 8) but a brief discussion of the three
methods is warranted.
11.5.1 Kangaroo fertility control
Long term fertility control of female kangaroos has emerged as a viable and effective non-lethal
method of kangaroo population control in locations where animals are relatively easy to approach
and where immigration rates are relatively low. The method has been trialled and applied
successfully to control peri-urban kangaroo populations in a number of locations in eastern and
south-eastern Australia (e.g. Herbert 2015, Territory and Municipal Services 2010, Wilson and
141
Coulson 2016). The method requires a contraceptive implant to be inserted under the skin of the
kangaroo. At present this requires the animal to be darted with an anaesthetic drug so that the
implant can be applied. This is labour intensive leading to relatively high budget costs but evolving
drug-delivery methods, such as darting with the contraceptive drug itself, are improving cost-
effectiveness (Herbert 2015).
The duration of contraception varies with the drug used but when remote delivery via darting is
utilised, which is the ideal end goal, it is of the order of 1 to 2 years whereupon re-treatment is
needed to prolong the contraceptive effect. Females become fertile again after this period (Herbert
per comms 2016).
A Sydney University research program implementing this technique is planned for three Coffs
Harbour Northern Beaches peri-urban kangaroo locations (pending funding levels): Heritage Park,
Emerald Beach headlands and Darlington Holiday Park (Dr Catherine Herbert, personal
communication).
11.5.2 Kangaroo translocation
Responses from Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches residents to an on-line community survey (see
section 8) indicated that most people preferred kangaroo translocation as a population control
method. This approach has been trialled elsewhere, at relatively small scales (e.g. Higginbottom and
Page 2010), with a number of unresolved and disputed issues. Basically the approach is very labour
(and resource) expensive, kangaroos are ill-suited to being captured and transported in significant
numbers and there is a general lack of suitable sites to translocate kangaroos to (Higginbottom and
Page 2010).
This approach may be applicable to small numbers of rehabilitated kangaroos but at this stage it is
not considered a viable option for direct management of Coffs Harbour’s peri-urban kangaroos.
11.5.3 Release of Kangaroos following rehabilitation
Kangaroos rehabilitated through a wildlife care organization, such as WIRES, should be released from
where they are rescued, as per OEH policy. Where this is not practical then they should not be
released in a KaMU from which they did not originate.
11.5.4 Kangaroo population culling
Macropod populations considered to be overabundant are frequently managed by culling, under an
NPWS permit, however in the context of managing urban kangaroo populations the use of firearms
to cull kangaroos could pose a serious safety risk to people. Culling is not seen as an option for direct
management of Coffs Harbour’s peri-urban kangaroos.
11.6 Applied kangaroo research
Three research foci are of relevance here in informing ongoing and long term management of peri-
urban kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches; results of these research programs will
also benefit kangaroo management elsewhere, particularly peri-urban populations. The first focus
involves the collection and analysis of samples from euthanized kangaroos to assess and monitor the
142
presence of disease in local populations. The second involves building knowledge regarding the
ecology of peri-urban kangaroos and their interactions with people and the environment. The third
research focus is aimed at trialling and applying the latest in non-lethal kangaroo population control.
11.6.1 Collaborative kangaroo disease research
As outlined in section 4.1.4 a number of diseases are known to occur within Coffs Harbour’s peri-
urban kangaroos with and at least one local Veterinarian collaborating with researchers from the
Australian Registry of Wildlife Health (ARWH).
While WIRES keeps its own records of call-outs to kangaroo incidents it would be valuable to
standardize the keeping of kangaroo incident records by Vets and all macropod / animal carers.
Information on location, species, sex, age, description of incident and diagnosis of any illness could
be added to a standard database routinely (e.g. updated monthly). This would allow the tracking of
disease outbreaks, inform the targeting of animals or locations in the face of an outbreak and
provide documented evidence to support applications for funding if required (Dr Stephen Deist
personal communication). Database development and management would be overseen by, and
facilitated through, the Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee (see action in section 12).
11.6.2 Collaborative kangaroo social and ecological research
With the initiation of the kangaroo management plan project the Kangaroo Steering Committee
sought input from UNE kangaroo researcher Associate Professor Karl Vernes who agreed to
participate on the committee and also to facilitate kangaroo research relevant to the plan. To that
end UNE engaged an Honours student, Tim Henderson, to undertake an applied project of kangaroo
and community survey and research on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. The Kangaroo
Management Committee agreed to facilitate the Honours project through liaison and assistance
from the Kangaroo Project Officer, David Scotts, provision of logistic assistance from NPWS and
CHCC staff and provision of financial assistance from the kangaroo project budget.
This collaborative approach has seen the successful undertaking of applied research including an on-
line community survey of attitudes to peri-urban kangaroos (see section 8 for a summary),
systematic bi-monthly kangaroo counts at key kangaroo hot spots (see section 9 for a summary) and
more recent application of GPS tracking to study kangaroo movement patterns at Heritage Park
(results not available at the time of plan writing).
Another relevant ecological research study, external to the kangaroo management plan, is being
conducted by UNE researchers. This study includes investigations of the impact of kangaroo grazing
on vegetation of a series of Coffs Harbour grassy headlands. A research paper has been submitted
and accepted for publication in a scientific journal (Hunter and Hunter in prep).
There are many potential kangaroo research topics with direct relevance to kangaroo management
and on-going collaborative approaches offer mutually agreeable outcomes.
At the time of writing, another applied kangaroo research program had received funding through
Coffs Harbour City Council’s Environment Levy (2016-17). This project, to be run by the University of
Sydney and titled Kangaroo Fertility Control Management Trials on the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches, will be applied at three important priority peri-urban kangaroo locations to trial and apply
143
the latest fertility control techniques to the management of kangaroo populations. This is an
important boost to the management of kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches and a
clear indication to the community of Council’s commitment to addressing the issues associated with
kangaroo management.
144
12. KANGAROO MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Action relating to kangaroo management is not subject to statutory drivers so authorities are
unlikely to act unless inaction carries significant consequences. Section 4 of this plan outlines and
discusses kangaroo management issues as they apply to peri-urban Coffs Harbour locations. It has
been established that at least some of these issues are locally significant as indicators of kangaroo
populations in need of management intervention with associated detrimental impacts for people,
kangaroos or the environment. These detrimental impacts are likely to translate into significant
costs, including social, economic and animal welfare costs, over the long term.
The kangaroo management actions expanded upon in this section flow directly from the synthesis of
all the information presented in sections 1-11. The management actions are initially presented
within the context of a Risk Assessment allowing the allocation of overall management priority
levels. The actions are then listed within a framework that directly reflects the identification of
management issues (section 4) and corresponding management approaches (section 11).
12.1 Risk assessment to prioritise management actions
It is recognised that agency managers will not be in a position to fund and undertake all of the
actions recommended in this plan. While the actions have been developed as a response to
identified kangaroo management issues they need to be prioritised so that those addressing issues
with the highest risk level (to people, kangaroos, the environment or economic values), and with
associated risk treatment plans (actions) considered likely to provide real benefits, can be
highlighted.
A formal risk assessment, derived directly from OEH’s risk assessment procedures, was applied.
Not all actions have been subjected to individual risk assessment. Rather, actions are incorporated
under the headings of broader objectives and outcomes which can be cross-referenced directly to
key management issues (refer to table of issues in section 4) and actions. Tables 7 - 11 summarize
the risk assessments and allow managers and stakeholders to consider the process of management
action prioritisation.
Very High Priority: actions addressing an extreme risk level;
High Priority: Actions addressing a high risk level;
Medium Priority: Actions addressing a medium risk level;
Low Priority: Actions addressing a low risk level;
145
Table 7. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo management objectives 1 -4 and associated outcomes (see
section 12 text) with management priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange: high; green- medium;
light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to text in section 12.2.
Pro
ba
bil
ity
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Pro
ba
bil
ity
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
1.1 Ongoing &
enhanced
Committee
representation
Elevated potential for
kangaroo
management issues
to impact community
and environmental
values
CHCC, NPWS, OEH,
WIRES, Coffs
Harbour
community
Existing Coffs
Harbour Kangaroo
Management
Committee
AlmostCert
ainMajor Extreme Yes
If risk is not addressed
then social,
environmental &
economic costs remain
potential ly high
Enhance KaMC community
representation (see
actions 1.1.1, 1.1.2)
Ongoing Possible Moderate Medium
1.2 Formalized
reporting
regarding relevant
kangaroo
management
issues
Reduced strategic
direction
CHCC, NPWS, OEH,
WIRES, Committee
veterinarian
Informal reporting
protocolsLikely Moderate High Yes
More strategic
information wil lead to
better management
responses
Formalized database for
kangaroo incidents (action
1.2.1) & regular reporting
to Kangaroo Committee
(actions 1.2.2 to 1.2.5)
Ongoing Possible Moderate Medium
2. Strategic and
targeted community
engagement
Emerging issues are
not canvassed and
addressed
2.1 Emerging
issues addressed
within priority 1 &
2 KaMUs (see
section 10)
Social, economic &
environmental issues
become increasingly
significant in their
impacts
Kangaroo
Management
Committee, NPWS
Community
Engagement, local
communities
Reactionary
management
AlmostCert
ainMajor Extreme Yes
Timely local
engagement and action
wil l ameliorate or
mitigate impacts most
efficiently
Provision of local ly
targetetd workshops and
information days on 'as
needs' basis (action 2.1.1)
As needed Possible Moderate Medium
Injury to school
children from
kangaroo attacks
3.1 Al l Northern
Beaches primary
schools included
in an annual
program
High potential for
increased incidence
of injury to school
chi ldren
NPWS Community
Engagement &
Living with Wildl ife
program
No annual program;
irregular del iveryLikely Major High Yes
Annual program
del ivery wil l raise
awareness and
ameliorate or mitigate
impacts most
efficiently
Embed the program within
ongoing NPWS core
funding to ensure annual
provision to all priority
schools (action 3.1.1)
As needed Possible Moderate Medium
Injury to aged care
cl ients from
kangaroo attacks
High potential for
increased incidence
of injury to aged car
cl ients
NPWS Community
Engagement &
Living with Wildl ife
program
No program Unlikely Major Medium Optional
Program delivery will
raise awareness and
ameliorate or mitigate
impacts
Offer the program to
priority aged care faci li ties
on a user-pays basis
(action 4.1.1)
On request Rare Minor Low
Injury to caravan &
hol iday park
residents and
visitors from
kangaroo attack
High potential for
increased incidence
of injury to park
residents & visitors
NPWS Community
Engagement &
Living with Wildl ife
program
No program; limited &
sporadic del iveryLikely Major High Yes
Program delivery will
raise awareness and
ameliorate or mitigate
impacts to some extent
Offer the program to
priority caravan parks /
holiday parks on a user-
pays basis (action 4.1.2)
On request Likely Moderate High
3 & 4. Renew the
NPWS Discovery
Rangers kangaroo
awareness and
safety program
3.2 The kangaroo
awareness &
safety program is
made available to
priority aged care
faci l ities, caravan
parks and holiday
parks (user-pays)
Desired outcome
(see section 12
text)
Residual Risk Rating
Justification for action
response
Existing management
approach
Impact if outcome
not achieved (Risk)
Current Risk Rating
Actions summary (see
section 12 text for more
detail)
TimeframeResponsibility /
stakeholder
Action required?
(automatically
populated)
The Risk Description
Disparite and non-
strategic kangaroo
management
Objective (see
section 12 text)
1. To maintain &
improve the
strategic role of
the Kangaroo
Management
Committee
146
Table 8. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo management objectives 5 - 7 and associated outcomes (see
section 12 text) with management priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange: high; green- medium;
light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to text in section 12.2.
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
5.1 Living with
kangaroos
brochure updated
Compromised or
outdated flagship
kangaroo awareness
& safety brochure
NPWS Customer
Experience Division
Current brochure
requires updating to
modern messaging
and formats
Likely Moderate High Yes
Updated brochure will
provide best current
information
Complete the planned
update of the Living with
kangaroos brochure and
develop tailored
communication products
for the specific overseas
tourist audiences (action
5.1.1, 5.1.2)
2016-17 Unlikely Minor Low
5.2 Program of
brochure
dissemination and
provision
developed
Target audience does
not receive best
available
information
NPWS Community
Engagement
Current broachure is
provided sporadically
and misses key
groups
Likely Moderate High Yes
Updated brochure will
provide best current
information to key
groups potentially
impacted by kangaroos
Strategic provision of
updated brochure (actions
5.2.1, 5.2.2)
Ongoing Unlikely Minor Low
6.1 Kangaroo
awareness signage
installed at key
public land
locations
Visitors to public
reserves may be
unaware of potential
kangaroo dangers
leading to
inappropriate
interactions
NPWS Coffs Coast,
NPWS, CHCC
Signage is not
installed at many key
locations
Possible Moderate Medium OptionalSignage will raise
visitor awareness
Finalize signage messages
and install at key public
locations (actions 6.1.1,
76.1.2)
Ongoing Unlikely Minor Low
6.2 Kangaroo
awareness signage
installed at key
caravan / holiday
parks, golf courses
Visitors to parks and
golf courses may be
unaware of potential
kangaroo dangers
leading to
inappropriate
interactions
NPWS Community
engagement, private
operators
Signage is not
installed at many
parks or is old and in
disrepair
(Woolgoolga Diggers
Golf Club)
Possible Moderate Medium OptionalSignage will raise
visitor awareness
NPWS to promote signage
& messages; private
operators to install
signage at key vantage
points (action 6.2.1, 6.2.2)
Ongoing Unlikely Minor Low
7. Bi-annual
kangaroo counts
are continued at
key kangaroo
locations
Kangaroo
populations change
without managers
knowledge
Systematic
kangaroo counts
undertaken bi-
annually at key
locations
Kangaroo
management will not
be informed by
adequate
background
knowledge of
populations
NPWS Coffs Coast
Basel ine counts exist
but regular ongoing
counts required
Possible Moderate Medium Optional
Systematic counts will
allow changes in
kangaroo numbers to
be monitopred
Undertake or intiate
systematic transect counts
at key kangroo locations
(actions 7.1.1, 7.1.2)
Ongoing Unlikely Minor Low
Timeframe
Current Risk Rating
Negative kangaroo
impacts on people
due to lack of best
information
Justification for action
response
Actions summary (see
section 12 text for more
detail)
Action required?
(automatically
populated)
Residual Risk Rating
RISK EVALUATION (APPETITE) RISK TREATMENT PLAN
5. Update and
disseminate the
OEH / NPWS Living
with Kangaroos
brichure
Responsibility /
stakeholder
Existing management
approach
Objective (see
section 12 text)The Risk Description
Desired outcome
(see section 12
text)
Impact if outcome
not achieved (Risk)
Negative kangaroo
impacts on people
due to lack of
awareness
6. Undertake /
facil itate
installation of
kangaroo
awareness signage
at key locations
147
Table 9. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo management objectives 8 & 9 and associated outcomes
(see section 12 text) with management priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange: high; green-
medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to text in section 12.2.
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Pro
bab
ilit
y
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Kangaroo
considerations are
embedded within
relevant
Development
Control Plans for
new developments
Increased risk of
negative kangaroo
incidents with social,
economic & animal
welfare implications
CHCC Local Planning
Kangaroos are not
considered within
strategic planning at
present
Likely Moderate High YesStrategic approaches
will lower risk
Incorporate kangaroo
planning within DCPs and
investigate developer-
sponsored kangaroo
mitigation schemes
(actions 8.1.1,
8.1.2,8.1.3,8.1.4,8.1.5)
Ongoing Possible Moderate Medium
Council open
space managers
incorporate
kangaroo-
unfriendly
approaches
Increased risk of
negative kangaroo
incidents with social,
economic & animal
welfare implications
CHCC reserve & open
space managers
Kangaroos are not
considered within
reserve & open space
management at
present
Likely Moderate High YesStrategic approaches
will lower risk
Council open space
managers to incorporate
kangaroo un-friendly
approaches (action 8.2.1)
Ongoing Possible Moderate Medium
Unfenced high
human use areas
place users at risk of
kangaroo attacks
Strategic fencing of
high human use
areas to exclude
kangaroos is
promoted
Risk of kangaroo
attack is not
mitigated
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo Steering
Committee (facil itate
a guideline)
Property fencing
guidelines do not
exist
Possible Moderate Medium Optional
Guidel ine may
facil itate strategic
fencing of schools and
high human use areas
Coffs Harbour Kangaroo
Management Committee
facil itates the production
of a strategic kangaroo
fencing guidel ine (action
9.1.1)
Ongoing Unlikely Minor Low
Perimeter fencing,
particulalrly within
large lot
subdivisions
concentrates
kangaroo elsewhere
Property perimeter
fencing is
discouraged
Displaced kangaroos
are concentrated
elsewhere
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo Steering
Committee (facil itate
a guideline)
Property fencing
guidelines do not
exist
Likely Minor Medium Optional
Guideline may
discourage property
perimeter fencing
Coffs Harbour Kangaroo
Management Committee to
commission the production
of a strategic kangaroo
fencing guideline (action
9.1.1)
Environment
levy application
2017-18
Possible Minor Low
Unfenced school
grounds and
caravan / holiday
parks place users at
risk of kangaroo
attacks
Strategic fencing of
parts of relevant
school grounds,
caravan / holiday
parks
Risk of kangaroo
attack is not
mitigated
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo
Management
Committee to
promote; self
funding of strategic
fencing
Strategic fencing
within schools &
parks is very limited
Likely Minor Medium Optional
Strategic fencing may
mitigate kangaroo
attacks
Coffs Harbour Kangaroo
Management Committee to
provide support for any
funding appl ications for
strategic fencing by
schools & caravan /
holiday parks
As Environment
Levy funding
requests arise
Possible Minor Low
Objective (see
section 12 text)The Risk Description
Existing management
approach
RISK EVALUATION (APPETITE) RISK TREATMENT PLAN
Current Risk Rating
Responsibility /
stakeholder
Action required?
(automatically
populated)
Justification for action
response
Actions summary (see
section 12 text for more
detail)
Timeframe
Residual Risk Rating
Desired outcome
(see section 12
text)
Impact if outcome
not achieved (Risk)
9. Promote
strategic fencing of
high human use
areas, at individual
property scale,
rather than
perimeter fencing
8. Embed the
consideration of
kangaroo
management within
counci l strategic
planning & open
space management
Kangaroo over-
abundance within
identified KaMUs
148
Table 10. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo management objectives 10 - 13 and associated outcomes
(see section 12 text) with management priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange: high; green-
medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to text in section 12.2.
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Pro
ba
bili
ty
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
10. Inform
gardeners &
landscapers about
kangaroo
unfriendly
plantings &
structures
Damage to garden &
landscape plantings
by peri -urban
kangaroos
Gardeners &
landscapers are
informed of
kangaroo
unfriendly options
Local ized impact on
people's gardens and
landscape plantings
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo Steering
Committee (facil i tate
a guidel ine)
Minimal education
regarding kangaroo
repellents,
unpalatable plants,
kangaroo-unfriendly
landscaping
Unlikely Minor Low Optional
If risk is not addressed
localized impacts will
continue
Coffs Harbour Kangaroo
Management Committe to
seek funds to commission
the production of a
kangaroo unfriendly
gardening & landscaping
guideline
Environment
levy application
2017-18
Unlikely Minor Low
11. Educate dog
owners regarding
legal and moral
responsibilities of
dog ownership in
relation to
kangaroos
Kangaroos being
harassed and even
ki l led by
inrestrained
domestic dogs
A decrease in the
incidence of dogs
harassing
kangaroos
Signifcant animal
welfare implications
NPWS Customer
Experience Division
CHCC Rangers enforce
Companion Animals
Act but education of
dog owners is
minimal
Likely Moderate High Yes
If risk is not addressed
localized impacts will
continue
Production of a
responsible dog ownership
brochure relevant to
kangaroos; dissemination
through Council & Vets
(actions 11.1.1, 11.1.2)
2017-18 Possible Moderate Medium
12. To reduce the
incidence of motor
vehicle accdents
involving
kangaroos
High incidence of
car colisions, and
collision avoidance
accidents involving
kangaros at certain
locations
A decrease in the
incidence of motor
vehicle accidents
involving
kangaroos
Ongoing high
incidence of human
injury, kangaroo
injury, economic
impacts
CHCC strategic asset
management; NPWS
Community
Engagement
Minimal signage and
driver educationPossible Major High Yes
If risk is not addressed
then social, economic
and animal welfare
costs will continue at
high levels
Increased signage and
driver awareness (actions
12.1.1, 12.1.2))
2017-19 Possible Major High
13. To continue
application of the
OEH protocol
dealing with
aggressive
individual
kangaroos
Protocol is not
applied adequately
due to issues
regarding kangaroo
euthanasia in urban
areas
Protocol applied
as efficiently and
humanely as
possible
Elevated community
safety issues and
animal welfare
issues
NPWS Coffs Coast
Protocol is applied
but sometimes the
identified kangaroo
cannot be euthansed
safey in urban areas
Possible Major High YesThe protocol needs to
applied efficeintly
Apply the protocol and
investigate darting
(tranqulizing) by CHCC
Rangers (actions 13.1.1,
13.1.2)
2017-20 Unlikely Moderate Medium
RISK EVALUATION (APPETITE) RISK TREATMENT PLAN
Action required?
(automatically
populated)
Justification for action
response
Actions summary (see
section 12 text for more
detail)
Timeframe
Residual Risk Rating
Objective (see
section 12 text)The Risk Description
Desired outcome
(see section 12
text)
Impact if outcome
not achieved (Risk)
Responsibility /
stakeholder
Current Risk Rating
Existing management
approach
149
Table 11. Risk assessment matrix (from OEH risk assessment procedures) addressing kangaroo management objectives 14 - 16 and associated outcomes
(see section 12 text) with management priorities (before & after application of actions) illustrated by shading: red- very high; orange: high; green-
medium; light blue- low. Recommended objectives, outcomes and actions relate to text in section 12.2.
Pro
ba
bil
ity
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Pro
ba
bil
ity
Co
nse
qu
en
ce
Ris
k L
ev
el
Kangaroo social,
economic & animal
welfare issues
relating to
overabundant
kangaroos
Reduction in
overabundant
kangaroo
populations at
Heritage Park &
Darl ington Park
Ongoing risk of
negative kangaroo-
related issues due to
overabundance
NPWS Coffs Coast &
CHCC and also
through Sydney
University
Nil Possible Major High Yes
If risk is not addressed
then social, economic
& animal welfare costs
could be substantial
Best option for direct
kangaroo population
management is kangaroo
ferti l ity control (Action
14.1.1)
2017-22 Unlikely Moderate Medium
Over-grazing of
threatened headland
grasslands by
overabundant
kangaroos
Reduction in
overabundant
kangaroo
populations on
Look At Me Now
and Damerells
headlands
Ongoing over-grazing
impacts on
Endangered
ecological
community and
threatened plant
species
NPWS Coffs Coast &
also through Sydney
University
Nil Likely Moderate High Yes
If risk is not addressed
the threat to EEC wil l
remain moderate to
severe in places
Best option for direct
kangaroo population
management is kangaroo
ferti l ity control (Action
14.1.1)
3 years initial ly;
ongoingPossible Moderate Medium
Long term funding of
ferti l ity control
program is
compromised
Long term funding
vehicles are
established
Risks associated
with overabundant
kangaroos are not
addressed
CHCC & NPWS Coffs
Coast
Trial l ikely to be
funded but source of
ongoing funds as yet
not identified
Likely Moderate High Yes
If risk is not addressed
then the ferti lity
control program wil l
not be extended
beyond the trial
Investigate & establish
resourcing options for a
long term kangaroo ferti l ity
control program (Action
14.1.2)
2017 & ongoing Possible Minor Low
Trained & l icenced
darters cannot be
deployed
Local providers
are trained for
animal darting
and available for
kangaroo darting
The long term
kangaroo ferti lity
control program
could be
compromised
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo
Management
Committee
Sydney university
darter to be brought
to Coffs Harbour for
the trial program
Possible Minor Low Optional
Maximizing program
efficiencies and giving
local providers
ownership of the
program
Investigate the deployment
and funding of CHCC
Rangers for kangaroo
darting (Action 14.1.3)
2017 & ongoing Possible Insignificant Low
15. Foster
partnerships with
universities for
kangaroo research
and Citizen Science
projects
Applied kangaroo
research and
community
involvement wanes
Research focus
and community
involvement is
maintained
Applied data and
information is not
collected and
community interest
wanes
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo
Management
Committee
The committee has an
ongoing rolePossible Minor Low Optional
Maximizing practical
data collection and
community
involvement
Contact with universities is
maintained and Citizen
science prjects are
established (Actions 15.1.1
& 15.1.2)
2017 & ongoing Possible Insignificant Low
16. Maintain and
foster l iaison with
non-government
groups with an
interest in peri-
urban kangaroo
management
Communication with
these groups lapses
and they become dis-
engaged
Groups such as
Aboriginal groups,
CHART, Wildlife
Rescue
Incorporated are
engaged in the
kangaroo
management
program
Dis-engegament wil l
breed dis-content
and disunity in
management
approaches
Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo
management
Committee with
emphasis on NPWS
Coffs Coast
The committee, and
NPWS, have an
ongoing role
Likely Moderate High Yes
Enhanced and unified
appraoch to kangaroo
management issues
Liaison with non-
governmant kangaroo
interest groups is
maintained and enhanced
(Action 16.1.1)
2017 & ongoing Possible Minor Low
14. To faci l itate &
assist with
kangaroo ferti l ity
control trials at
Heritage Park,
Darl ington Holiday
Park & Emerald
Beach headlands
Desired outcome
(see section 12
text)
Impact if outcome
not achieved (Risk)
Responsibility /
stakeholder
Existing management
approach
Current Risk Rating
Action required?
(automatically
populated)
Justification for action
response
Actions summary (see
section 12 text for more
detail)
Timeframe
Residual Risk Rating
RISK EVALUATION (APPETITE) RISK TREATMENT PLAN
Objective (see
section 12 text)The Risk Description
150
12.2 Management Actions
Refer to Table 7 – 11 for added information and the allocation of priority levels.
12.2.1 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee
The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee (KaMC) was formalised and convened in July
2015 to oversee and facilitate the formulation of the Kangaroo Management Plan. The committee
has met on an ‘as needed’ basis and has important ongoing roles (see section 2.1).
Management Objective 1: To maintain and improve the strategic role of the
Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee in overseeing kangaroo
management issues across the Local Government Area
OUTCOME 1.1: Ongoing and enhanced Kangaroo Management Committee representation
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Local Government Area
1.1.1 Commitment of stakeholders to ongoing committee role.
1.1.2 Expansion of community representative numbers (from current priority Kangaroo
Management Units) on the committee to provide enhanced local perspective.
All VERY HIGH PRIORITY / Funding: Ongoing agency (NPWS, CHCC, OEH) funding
OUTCOME 1.2: Formalised reporting regarding relevant kangaroo management issues to
the Kangaroo Management Committee
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Local Government Area
1.2.1 Development of a standard macropod incidents data base to be populated routinely (e.g.
monthly) by WIRES macropod carers, other licenced macropod carers, Vets dealing with kangaroo
incidents and NPWS officers dealing with kangaroo incidents
1.2.2 Annual reporting on the standard macropod incidents data base
1.2.3 Bi-annual reporting of ongoing research programs
1.2.4 Annual reporting on CHCC planning & kangaroo considerations
1.2.5 Annual or periodic update on kangaroo disease issues & research & the establishment of a
standard kangaroo incidents database for use by vets and WIRES.
All HIGH PRIORITY / Funding: Agency core funding or grant applications (e.g. Coffs Harbour
Environment Levy, research grants)
151
12.2.2 Community engagement and education
Community engagement will continue to be the basis for ongoing proactive management of
kangaroo issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. An engaged and educated community will
go a long way towards resolving management issues (see sections 2.4 & 8).
Management Objective 2: To provide for strategic and targeted community
engagement
OUTCOME 2.1: Emerging kangaroo issues addressed within priority KaMUs
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
2.1.1 Provide targeted engagement (workshops, information days) on an ‘as needs’ basis as part
of NPWS’s community engagement program’s core funding.
VERY HIGH PRIORITY / Funding: Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17 funded but ongoing
agency funding will be needed.
Management Objective 3: To continue and enhance the NPWS Discovery
Rangers kangaroo awareness and safety program within all Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches primary schools
OUTCOME 3.1: All Northern Beaches schools are included in the annual NPWS Discovery
Rangers kangaroo awareness & safety program
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
3.1.1 Embed the NPWS Discovery Rangers kangaroo schools program within ongoing NPWS core
funding to ensure provision of the program to relevant schools on an annual basis.
3.1.2 Expand the NPWS Discovery Rangers kangaroo program to all Northern Beaches schools.
VERY HIGH PRIORITY / Funding: Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17 funded but ongoing
agency funding will be needed.
Management Objective 4: To make the NPWS Discovery Rangers kangaroo
awareness & safety program available, on a user-pays basis, to Coffs Harbour
Northern Beaches caravan parks, holiday parks and aged-care facilities
OUTCOME 4.1: All Northern Beaches aged care facilities and priority holiday parks &
caravan parks (see section 10) are offered inclusion in the annual NPWS Discovery Rangers
kangaroo awareness & safety program, on a user-pays basis
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
152
4.1.1 Offer the NPWS Discovery Rangers program to Northern Beaches aged care facilities, on a
user-pays basis.
MEDIUM PRIORITY / Offer of program by NPWS; Program funding by aged care facility.
4.1.2 Offer the NPWS Discovery Rangers program to priority (see section 10) Northern Beaches
holiday & caravan parks, on a user-pays basis.
HIGH PRIORITY / Offer of program by NPWS; Program funded by holiday and caravan parks.
Management Objective 5: Update the OEH / NPWS Living with Kangaroos
brochure and develop a strategic program for brochure dissemination and
provision
OUTCOME 5.1: Living with Kangaroos update completed
ACTIONS: OEH / NPWS Customer Experience Division
5.1.1 Complete the planned update of the Living with Kangaroos brochure.
5.1.2 Develop tailored communication products for the specific overseas tourist audience
including backpackers and fruit-pickers
HIGH PRIORITY / Funding: Coffs Harbour Environment Levy and NPWS core funding.
OUTCOME 5.2: A strategic program for dissemination and provision for the updated Living
with Kangaroos brochure and other educational material is developed
ACTIONS: Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10)
5.2.1 Strategic provision of Living with Kangaroos communication to existing residents, new
residents and caravan / holiday parks within priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see
section 10).
5.2.2 Strategic provision of updated Living with Kangaroos communication to Coffs Harbour
backpacker accommodation, fruit pickers, tourist information outlets and on-line tourism
information sources relevant to Coffs Harbour tourism
HIGH PRIORITY / Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17 funded but ongoing agency funding will
be needed if educational programs are to be ongoing.
Management Objective 6: Undertake or facilitate the installation of up to
date kangaroo awareness and safety signage at strategic key locations
OUTCOME 6.1: Kangaroo awareness & safety signage installed at key public land locations
(entries to NPWS and Council managed headlands, reserves & playing fields) within
priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (Section 10).
ACTIONS: Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10)
153
6.1.1 Finalise key messages for kangaroo awareness signage.
6.1.2 Install signage at entry points to key headlands, reserves & playing fields.
MEDIUM PRIORITY: Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17 funds applied for but ongoing agency
funding will be needed.
OUTCOME 6.2: Kangaroo awareness & safety signage installed at key privately owned
caravan parks, holiday parks and golf courses within priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo
Management Units (Section 10).
ACTIONS: Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10)
6.2.1 NPWS to promote need for kangaroo awareness signage & key messages for signage to
affected caravan parks, holiday parks & golf courses
6.2.2 Affected private enterprises install signage at key vantage points
MEDIUM PRIORITY / Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17 funds applied for but private
enterprises will need to fund their own signage.
12.2.3 Kangaroo population information
Kangaroo counts have been initiated at a number of key locations (see section 9). It is important that
these counts are continued to monitor kangaroo population levels over the long term. Other
locations should be included in the monitoring program if kangaroo issues require it.
Management Objective 7: Bi-annual kangaroo counts (spring-summer &
autumn-winter) are continued to monitor kangaroo populations at key
locations (see section 9)
OUTCOME 7.1: Systematic kangaroo counts undertaken bi-annually at key locations
ACTIONS: At established count locations (section 9) & others where significant issues emerge
7.1.1 Undertake at least bi-annual kangaroo counts, applying the transect methods described in
section 9, at established key locations (section 9).
7.1.2 Initiate counts at new locations if significant kangaroo issues emerge.
All HIGH PRIORITY / NPWS ongoing core funding
154
12.2.4 Coffs Harbour Council strategic planning and open space management
Where kangaroos are present urban development and open space management can inadvertently
promote their habitats and exacerbate kangaroo management issues (sections 4.3.4). Novel
approaches are needed to minimize this. Potential approaches to embed the consideration of
kangaroos in Council strategic planning and open space management are discussed in section 11.
Actions outlined below flow from those approaches.
Management Objective 8: Embed the consideration of kangaroo
management within Council strategic planning corresponding with mapped
Kangaroo Management Units (section 10).
OUTCOME 8.1: Kangaroo considerations are embedded within Development Control Plans
corresponding with mapped Kangaroo Management Units (section 10) for new
development.
ACTIONS : Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10)
8.1.1 Incorporate kangaroo planning within Development Control Plans corresponding with
mapped Kangaroo Management units (section 10).
8.1.2 Council to require new developments to consider the use of exclusion fencing to either
exclude kangaroos from common areas (e.g. play grounds), or channel kangaroos around a
development.
8.1.3 Council to require new greenfield developments within Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo
Management Units (section 10) to implement staged clearing linked to infrastructure needs and
demand for lots rather than broad scale clearing which creates large areas of grassy habitat. If this
cannot be achieved then alternative measures are to be implemented such as site stabilisation
techniques that do not create grassy habitat, or temporary exclusion fencing in stages that are yet to
be released.
8.1.4 Council to update its Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) guidelines to require new
developments seeking to implement WSUD to use approaches that do not promote kangaroo
habitat. This may include, but is not limited to, using kangaroo un-friendly plantings (refer Section
11.3.3) in place of grass and avoiding detention basins or wetlands that retain permanent water in
high use areas;
8.1.5 Investigate the application of developer-sponsored kangaroo issue mitigation schemes in
new developments (e.g. for strategic fencing, landscaping, movement corridors and fertility control
programs should they be found to be successful.
All HIGH PRIORITY / CHCC ongoing funding
155
OUTCOME 8.2: Council open space managers incorporate kangaroo-unfriendly mowing,
gardening and landscaping approaches to minimize the promotion of kangaroo habitats
within mapped Kangaroo Management Units (section 10).
ACTIONS: Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10)
8.2.1 Council open space managers to implement gardening & landscape design approaches that
minimize grassy open spaces and promote kangaroo un-friendly plantings (e.g. sedges, shrubs,
rockeries) and structures.
HIGH PRIORITY / CHCC ongoing funding
12.2.5 Strategic kangaroo exclusion fencing
Community engagement highlighted the issue of kangaroo-proof fencing to be highly contentious
among residents of peri-urban Coffs Harbour locations with abundant kangaroos, particularly
Heritage Park (see section 8). Some people favour perimeter fencing to exclude kangaroos from their
property entirely while others favour no fencing, to allow kangaroos freedom of movement.
Management Objective 9: Promote the strategic use of appropriate
individual property fencing to largely exclude kangaroos from high human
use areas (e.g. school grounds) or children’s play & family recreation areas
within mapped kangaroo Management Units (section 10).
OUTCOME 9.1: The Kangaroo Management Committee commissions the development of a
property fencing guideline applicable within mapped Kangaroo Management Units
(section 10).
ACTIONS: Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10)
9.1.1 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee to commission the production of a
strategic property fencing guideline to encourage strategic kangaroo fencing of high human use
areas but discourage property perimeter fencing.
9.1.2 The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee to provide support for any funding
applications or organized funding drives for strategic kangaroo fencing submitted by schools &
caravan parks / holiday parks mapped as Priority 1 or 2 Kangaroo Management Zones (section 10).
MEDIUM PRIORITY / subject to funding
156
12.2.6 Kangaroo unfriendly gardening and landscaping
This is a localized kangaroo management issue but one that may have significance to gardeners and
landscapers where kangaroos are abundant. Some approaches to addressing this issue are outlined
in section 11.3.3.
Management Objective 10: Inform gardeners & landscapers about kangaroo
unfriendly plantings and structures to mitigate localized impacts of
kangaroos.
OUTCOME 10.1: Gardeners & landscapers are informed of kangaroo unfriendly options.
ACTIONS: Priority 1, 2 & 3 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10).
10.1.1 Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee to seek funds to commission the
production of a kangaroo unfriendly gardening & landscaping guideline.
LOW PRIORITY / subject to funding application
12.2.7 Responsible dog ownership
The issue of domestic dogs harassing and even killing kangaroos is a concern to many people
(section 8) with many recorded incidents (section 4.1.2).
Management Objective 11: Educate dog owners regarding legal and moral
responsibilities of dog ownership in relation to kangaroos
OUTCOME 11.1: A decrease in the incidence of domestic dogs harassing and killing
kangaroos in peri-urban areas
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Local Government Area
11.1.1 NPWS to produce, or commission the production of, a responsible dog ownership brochure
dealing with wildlife generally and kangaroos specifically
11.1.2 Once produced the brochure is provided to dog owners through Council’s dog registration
processes and through Coffs Harbour veterinarians
Both HIGH PRIORITY / Funding through NPWS and Coffs Harbour Council funding.
12.2.8 Enhanced traffic calming
Motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos are significant issue on the Coffs Harbour Northern
Beaches (section 4.1.3). When canvassed about mitigation of this issue the community expressed a
clear preference for kangaroo awareness signage as a traffic calming measure over other measures
such as roundabouts, chicanes and enhanced street lighting.
157
Management Objective 12: To reduce the incidence of motor vehicle
accidents involving kangaroos on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
OUTCOME 12.1: A decrease in the incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving
kangaroos.
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Local Government Area
12.1.1 Installation of kangaroo awareness signage at kangaroo-related road accident hot spots(e.g.
Heritage Park, Avocado Heights, Woolgoolga, Safety Beach, Mullaway).
12.1.2 Elevate community awareness regarding kangaroo-related motor vehicle accidents through
provision of education material through local media outlets.
All HIGH PRIORITY / Funding through CHCC Strategic Asset Management; NPWS has applied for
kangaroo community engagement funds through the Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17.
12.2.9 Dealing with aggressive individual kangaroos
NPWS Rangers are occasionally called upon to license and facilitate (by a Vet) the euthanasia of a
kangaroo that has attacked a person or has been aggressive towards people. This role is carried out
in accordance with an OEH protocol dealing specifically with aggressive kangaroos (see section 5).
Euthanasia is usually performed by shooting the kangaroo but in some instances the kangaroo’s
location makes that inappropriate or impossible, for example the kangaroo may be within a
suburban backyard and lethal shooting would place people in danger or cause unnecessary stress to
people in the area. In this case the use of a tranquilizer dart is most appropriate but NPWS Rangers
are not trained, nor equipped, to undertake darting. Coffs Harbour Council Rangers are trained and
equipped to undertake animal darting; they perform this role when the need arises to tranquilise
aggressive dogs and other animals that cannot be otherwise captured or controlled by hand. These
skills could be applied to the darting of kangaroos that have been licenced for euthanasia within
urban areas where use of a lethal firearm would be inappropriate.
Management Objective 13: To continue application of the OEH protocol
dealing with aggressive individual kangaroos, including the licencing and
undertaking of euthanasia.
OUTCOME 13.1: The OEH Protocol is applied as efficiently and humanely as possible.
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Local Government Area
13.1.1 Continue to apply the OEH protocol dealing with aggressive individual kangaroos.
13.1.2 Investigate the deployment and funding of Coffs Harbour City Council Rangers for licenced
kangaroo darting for purposes of kangaroo tranquilizing when circumstances require it.
HIGH PRIORITY / Ongoing NPWS funding.
158
12.2.10 Kangaroo fertility control
Subject to successful funding under the Coffs Harbour Environment Levy 2016-17 program a trial
kangaroo fertility control program is proposed for Heritage Park and Darlington Holiday Park, where
kangaroos are considered to in need of management intervention due mainly to their impacts on
social values, and Emerald Beach headlands, where kangaroos are exerting heavy grazing pressures
on an endangered ecological community (sections 4 & 10). If successful the program could then be
considered for extension to other locations with kangaroo populations in need of management
intervention. This would be subject to future funding and logistics arrangements as well as animal
welfare protocols.
Management Objective 14: To facilitate and assist with the undertaking of
kangaroo fertility control research on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
OUTCOME 14.1: The trial program is demonstrated to be successful in reducing kangaroo
populations in need of management intervention at Heritage Park, Darlington Park and
Emerald Beach headlands.
ACTIONS: Priority 1 & 2 Kangaroo Management Units (see section 10) on the Northern Beaches
14.1.1 Provide logistic support as needed to the Sydney University kangaroo fertility control trials
planned for Heritage Park, Darlington Beach Holiday Park and Emerald Beach headlands.
14.1.2 Investigate and establish resourcing options for a long term program of kangaroo population
fertility control (should trials prove to be successful) through mechanisms such as developer
contributions, Coffs Harbour’s Environment Levy and funding by private operators (golf clubs,
caravan / holiday parks).
14.1.3 Investigate the deployment and funding of Coffs Harbour City Council Rangers for kangaroo
darting for fertility control drug delivery for kangaroo tranquilizing prior to drug injection. This will
be subject to available resources.
All HIGH PRIORITY / Application for trial funding is current; long term funding requires addressing.
12.2.11 Peri-urban kangaroo research
There is considerable scope for further applied research addressing peri-urban kangaroo
management issues on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches. Aspects such as habitat mapping,
population demographics, and movement and genetics studies would all provide relevant
management information. Partnerships between NPWS, CHCC and universities are a proven model
for maximizing mutually beneficial returns and efficiencies in such projects.
There is also demonstrable scope for the establishment of Citizen Science projects dealing with
kangaroos. This approach has been successfully applied to koalas and other species as part of NPWS,
OEH and non-government programs. By targeting schools and interested community members
Citizen Science programs encourage interest, participation and a sense of ownership. They could also
be designed to contribute valuable information for kangaroo management. The development of a
159
mobile phone Application (App), including facilities for photo and observation downloads, has been
discussed by the Kangaroo Management committee as one avenue to consider in this context.
Management Objective 15: Foster partnerships with universities to pursue
opportunities for peri-urban kangaroo research and Citizen Science projects.
OUTCOME 15.1: Research partnerships and Citizen Science projects are established to
address kangaroo management issues
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Action 15.1.1 The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee to establish and maintain
communication with relevant universities to encourage research partnerships for peri-urban
kangaroo projects.
Action 15.1.2 The Coffs Harbour Kangaroo Management Committee to investigate the potential for
Citizen Science projects, including the development of a mobile phone App to encourage community
engagement with kangaroo management issues.
Medium PRIORITY / subject to funding
12.2.12 On-going liaison with non-government groups
This project has extended and initiated contact with a number of non-government groups concerned
with kangaroo management issues. It is important that communication and liaison with these groups
is maintained to facilitate the on-going flow of information.
As the primary wildlife rescue organisation in NSW WIRES is represented on the Coffs Harbour
Kangaroo Management Committee, and indeed was a partner in this kangaroo management plan
project. Contact and dialogue has been established with Northern Beaches representatives of
another group, Wildlife Rescue Incorporated, who also assist with kangaroo rescue.
The Coffs Harbour Animal Rescue Trust (CHART) is a non-profit partnership of Dolphin Marine Magic,
WIRES, NPWS, TAFE, Australian Registry of Wildlife Health (ARWH), Australian Wildlife Health
Network, the University of Sydney, Coffs Harbour City Council, and the Department of Primary
Industries. It has a focus on providing critical veterinary care for koalas and other native fauna and
marine animals and undertakes rescue, transport, rehabilitation and release of these animals back
into their habitats. CHART also supports research activities relevant to the field of wildlife health,
ecology and disease. CHART has facilitated the provision of funds to help local Vet, Dr Stephen Deist,
and ARWH with funds for the collection and transport of kangaroo samples for kangaroo health
research. NPWS’s representation on CHART will enable the Kangaroo Management Committee to
stay abreast of relevant activities and issues.
The NPWS is in regular communication and liaison with local Aboriginal groups and has informed
these groups about the development of this management plan and committed to further discussions
concerning and plan.
160
Management Objective 16: Maintain and foster liaison with non-government
groups with an interest in peri-urban kangaroo management
OUTCOME 16: Liaison with non-government groups with an interest in peri-urban
kangaroo management is maintained and fostered.
ACTIONS: Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches
Action 16.1.1: The Kangaroo Management Committee to facilitate on-going liaison (by NPWS) with
non-government groups with an interest in peri-urban kangaroo management issues (e.g. Aboriginal
groups, CHART, Wildlife Rescue Incorporated).
HIGH PRIORITY / Ongoing Committee and NPWS role
161
13 REFERENCES
Adderton Herbert, C. (2004). Long-acting contraceptives: A new tool to manage overabundant
kangaroo populations in nature reserves and urban areas. Australian Mammalogy 26: 67-74.
Banks, P. B., Newsome, A. E., and Dickman, C. R. (2000). Predation by red foxes limits recruitment in
populations of eastern grey kangaroos. Austral Ecology 25: 283-291.
Ballard, G. (2005). Attitudes and context in Human-Kangaroo Interactions from the Coffs Coast and
Grafton areas of North Eastern NSW. Unpublished report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service. Ecosystem Management, University of New England.
Ballard, G. (2008) . Peri-urban kangaroos. Wanted? Dead or alive? Pp. 49-51 in Too close for
comfort: contentious issues in human-wildlife encounters, edited by Daniel Lunney, Adam Munn and
Will Meikle. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.
Baker, P.J. and Harris, S. (2007). Urban mammals: What does the future hold? An analysis of the
factors affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain. Mammal Review 37: 297-315
Barker, R.D. and Caughley, G. (1992). Distribution and abundance of kangaroos (Marsupialia:
Macropodidae) at the time of European contact: Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 15: 81-88.
Buxton, M, Tieman, G, Bekessy, S, Budge, T, Mercer, D, Coote, M, and Morcombe, J, (2006) Change
and Continuity in Peri-urban Australia, State of the Peri-urban Regions: A Review of the Literature,
RMIT University, Melbourne.
Calaby, J.H. (1966). Mammals of the Upper Richmond and Clarence Rivers, New South Wales. CSIRO
Division of Wildlife Research Technical Paper No. 10.
Calaby, J.H. and Grigg, G.C. (1989). Changes in macropodid communities and populations in the past
22 years, and the future. Pp. 813-820 in Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-Kangaroos, ed. By G. Grigg, P.
Jarman and I. Hume. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, New South Wales.
Caughley, G.J. (1964). Density and dispersion of two species of kangaroo in relation to habitat.
Australian Journal of Zoology 56: 751-761.
Caughley, G. (1981). Overpopulation. Pp. 7-19 in Problems in the Management of Locally Abundant
Wild Animals, edited by P.A. Jewell, S. Holt and D. Hart. Academic Press, New York.
Chachelle, P.D., Chambers, B.K., Bencini, R. and Maloney, S.K. (2016). Western grey kangaroos
(Macropus fuliginosus) include fauna underpasses in their home range. Wildlife Research 43: 13-19.
Coffs Harbour City Council (2015). Coffs Harbour Biodiversity Action Strategy, 2012-2030; From the
Ocean to the Ranges; Part A: Acknowledging Coffs Harbour’s Biodiversity Values. Coffs Harbour City
Council.
Coulson, G. (2007). Exploding kangaroos: assessing the problems and setting targets. Pp. 174-181 in
Pest or Guest: the zoology of overabundance. Ed by D. Lunney, P. Eby, P. Hutchings, and S. Burgin.
Royal zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, Australia).
162
Coulson, G. Cripps, J.K. and Wilson, M.E. (2014). Hopping down the main street: Eastern grey
kangaroos at home in an urban matrix. Animals 4: 271-291.
Davies, R.G., Webber, L.M, and Barnes, G.S. (2004). Urban wildlife management – it’s as much about
people! Pp 38-43 in Urban Wildlife; more than meets the eye. Edited by Daniel Lunney and Shelley
Burgin. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.
Eldridge, M.D.B., Piggott, M.P. and Hazlitt, S.L. (2010). Population genetic studies of the
Macropodidae: a review. Pp. 35-51 in Macropods; the Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-
kangaroos. Edited by G. Coulson and M. Eldridge. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Fletcher, D. (2007). Managing Eastern Grey Kangaroos Macropus giganteus in the Australian Capital
Territory: reducing the overabundance – of opinion. Pp 117 – 128 in Pest of Guest: the zoology of
overabundance, edited by Daniel Lunney, Peggy Eby, Pat Hutchings and Shelley Burgin. Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia.
Frith, H.J. and Calaby, J.H. (1969). Kangaroos. Cheshire, Melbourne.
Glass, R., Forsyth, D.M., Coulson, G. and Festa-Bianchet, M. (2015). Precision, accuracy and bias of
walked line-transect distance sampling to estimate eastern grey kangaroo populations size. Wildlife
research 42: 633-641.
Herbert, C.A., Renfree, M.B., Coulson, G., Shaw, G, Trigg, T.E. and Cooper, D.W. (2010). Advances in
fertility control technologies for managing overabundant macropodid populations. Pp. 313-324 in
Macropods; the Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-kangaroos. Edited by G. Coulson and M.
Eldridge. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Herbert, C. (2015). NGBC (Nelson Bay Golf Club): Kangaroo Program Update. Unpublished report.
Higginbottom, K., Northrope, C.L., Croft, D.B., Hill, B. and Fredline, E. (2004). The role of kangaroos in
Australian tourism. Australian Mammalogy 26, 23-32.
Higginbottom, K. and Page, S., (2010). Monitoring the fate of translocated eastern grey kangaroos at
the Gold Coast. Pp. 341-348 in Macropods; the Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-kangaroos.
Edited by G. Coulson and M. Eldridge. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Hunter, J.T. and Hunter, V.H. (in prep). Floristics, dominance and diversity within the threatened
Themeda grassy headlands of the North Coast Bioregion of New South Wales.
Inwood, D., Catanchin, H., and Coulson, G. (2008). Roo town slow down: a community-based
kangaroo management plan for Anglesea, Victoria. Pp 1 – 8 in Too close for comfort: contentious
issues in human-wildlife encounters, edited by Daniel Lunney, Adam Munn and Will Meikle. Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia.
Jarman, P. and Gray, L. (2000). Conflict Between Humans and Kangaroos in the South Grafton Hill
Area. A Preliminary Collection and Review of Information. Unpublished report NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Service, Grafton. Ecosystem Management, University of New England.
Lunney, D., Munn, A. and Meikle, W. (2008). Contentious issues in human-wildlife encounters:
seeking solutions in a changing social context. Pp. 285 292 in Too close for comfort: contentious
163
issues in human-wildlife encounters, edited by Daniel Lunney, Adam Munn and Will Meikle. Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia.
Madden, F. (2004). Creating Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local
Efforts to Address Human–Wildlife Conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9:247–257, 2004
Maxwell, S., Burbidge, A and Morris, K. (1996). The 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and
Monotremes. Wildlife Australia, Canberra, ACT.
Moriarty, A.L. (2004). Wild deer herds in Australia’s urban fringe: issues, management and politics.
Pp 179-185 in Urban Wildlife: more than meets the eye. Edited by Daniel Lunney and Shelley Burgin.
Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.
NSW NPWS (1994). Fauna of the North-East New South Wales Forests. North East Forests
Biodiversity Study, Report No. 3. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service
NSW NPWS (2012). Moonee Beach Nature Reserve Plan of Management. Office of Environment and
Heritage NSW, Sydney South.
Poole, W.E. (1995). Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790. Pp. 335-338 in The
Mammals of Australia ed. By R. Strahan. Reed Books, Chatswood NSW.
Pople, T. and Grigg, G. (1999). Commercial harvesting of kangaroos in Australia (Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra).
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/commercial-harvesting-kangaroos-australia
Redman, D. (2014). An Evaluation of Eastern Grey Kangaroo Exclusion Fencing at St Francis Xavier
Primary School (SFX) Woolgoolga NSW. Unpublished NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service report.
Grafton, NSW.
Richardson, K. (2012). Australia’s Amazing Kangaroos; Their Conservation, Unique Biology and
Coexistence with Humans. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.
Sandpiper Ecological (2016). Pacific Highway Upgrade – Sapphire to Woolgoolga; Operational Phase
Fauna Crossing Monitoring Program – Year 1. Draft unpublished report to Roads and Maritime
Services.
Schmidt, B., Coulson, G and Di Stefana, J. ((2010). Habitat partitioning among sympatric grey
kangaroos and swamp wallabies in box-ironbark remnants. Pp. 219-231 in Macropods; the Biology of
Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-kangaroos. Edited by G. Coulson and M. Eldridge. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood.
Scotts, D. (2008). Kangaroos and People: a Review of Issues in Coffs Coast Context. Unpublished
Report for the Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service, Coffs Coast Area, Coffs Harbour NSW.
Southwell, C.J. (1987). Macropod studies at Wallaby Creek. II. Density and distribution of macropod
species in relation to environmental variables. Australian Wildlife Research 14: 15-33.
164
Speare, R., Donovan, J.A., Thomas, A.D. and Speare, P.J. (1989). Diseases in free-ranging
Macrpodoidea. Pp. 705-734 in Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-kangaroos, edited by G. Grigg, P.
Jarman and I. Hume. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, New South Wales.
Territory and Municipal Services (2010). ACT Kangaroo Management Plan. Territory and Municipal
Services, Canberra.
Thomsen, D.A., Muir, K. and Davies, J. (2006). Aboriginal perspectives on kangaroo management in
South Australia. The Rangeland Journal 28: 127-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ05028
Van der Ree, R. (2004). The impact of urbanisation on the mammals of Melbourne – do atlas records
tell the whole story or just some of the chapters? Pp 195-204 in Urban Wildlife: more than meets the
eye. Edited by Daniel Lunney and Shelley Burgin. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales,
Mosman, NSW.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2010). Washington State Deer Management plan:
White-tailed Deer. Wildlife program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
Wilson, M.E. and Coulson, G. (2016). Comparative efficacy of levonorgestrel and deslorelin
contraceptive implants in free-ranging eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus). Wildlife
Research 43(3) 212-219 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR15176
165
APPENDIX 1: An Evaluation of Eastern Grey Kangaroo Exclusion
Fencing at St Francis Xavier Primary School (SFX) Woolgoolga NSW.
SUMMARY
SFX is a 230 child K to 7 primary school. A group of eastern grey kangaroos (EGK) live within the
school grounds. These kangaroos have become habituated and have been recognised as a potential
risk to students.
Several minor interactions between EGK and students have reinforced the potential risk.
The school dealt with this risk initially with student education and the implementation of several
staff EGK related protocols.
In September 2013, a staged EGK exclusion fence was completed.
There has since been no EGK within the exclusion fence with associated risk eliminated.
Image taken southern school boundary looking north. Fence in foreground with school buildings in
background.
The School
Saint Francis Xavier School is a K to year 6 primary school with 230 students and 12 staff. Students
range in age from 4 to 13. The school was constructed in 1994 is 350 metres from the eastern beach
and encompasses as area of 2.8 hectares with a grounds perimeter of 800 metres.
166
Woolgoolga Town and Location of SFX School
The Kangaroos
Over the years, a small population of EG kangaroos have resided within the school grounds. These
grounds and the surrounding landscape provide ideal habitat for EG with consistent reliable food
and water resources, shelter from wind and sun and wide open views.
The school EG mob use the oval for feeding and use the southern and eastern vegetation to rest and
shelter. When few people are present i.e. overnight, weekends and school holiday periods, the EG
move into close in school areas to exploit additional food and shelter opportunities.
EG readily move in and around and through surrounding properties in apparently established daily
routines.
The resident population totalled approximately 5 to 10 animals. They appear to be a single social
group, predominantly female with young at foot, a dominant male and a few unattached socially
neutral males. It is anticipated this EG group spend most of their lives in this local area.
167
The Landscape
The eastern side of Woolgoolga is dominated by a large rocky headland, a long sandy beach with a
low narrow dune strip rising up to 40 metres ASL to several east west oriented clay ridges. There are
several ephemeral and perennial creeks nearby.
Vegetation communities within 1km of the school include, dune spinifex grassland, coastal complex,
paperbark swamp, swamp oak forest, mangrove forest, saltmarsh flats and eucalypt forests.
The vegetation within the school grounds is highly modified with predominantly native species
planted under the terms of a landscape plan that aims to provide open grassy play areas, school
amenity and re- creation of local natural systems.
The school sits within a coastal urban soft development area with housing along northern and
western sides, a retirement village to the south and large sports ovals, regional park protected area
and a sewage treatment plant to the east.
The School and the Kangaroos
Several issues emerged concerning the EG and the students sharing the school, these included :
Indirect risk
• Students and EG sharing the oval during playtime with EG grazing.
• Students sharing shaded vegetated areas with resting EG.
• Students and parents forced to walk close to EG as they enter or depart the school grounds.
• EG moving through choke points within school buildings at speed.
Direct risk
• Risk of attack from aggressive or sexually excited socially dominant EG males.
• Risk of attack from socially isolated EG females.
• Risk of students being run down by a frighted EG moving at speed particularly within school
choke points (narrow lanes between buildings).
• Risk of students startling a kangaroo within confined school areas and triggering a kangaroo
flight / fight response.
Broader Risk Factors
The Environment :
• Vegetation concealing resting kangaroos from children and supervising adults.
• Large open flat areas with good views where kangaroos are frequently exposed to the
presence of people including their habits, their noise and their movements potentially
amplifying habituation levels.
• High rainfall, productive area providing consistent kangaroo resources around food and
water with subsequent high site fidelity with kangaroos potentially in areas for longer
periods with potentially higher habituation levels.
• Kangaroos seeing and interacting with people on foot.
168
• Children less intensively supervised (outside of class) by adults during play time when they
are likely to encounter kangaroos.
• Generally children less than 10 years old cannot always be relied upon to react as trained.
• There is likely to be handfeeding and close contact of EG in the retirement village leading to
high level habituation of individual animals.
• School landscaping and vegetation provides good resources for kangaroos with grassy ovals
and nearby shade trees.
• Large grassy ovals adjacent to east of school.
The People :
• Distance of children from supervisor when playing on oval and likely to interact with EG.
• Majority of contact with kangaroos is with children. Primary school students smaller and
shorter than the general community and often under one metre in height. People of this
size and height may be viewed differently by kangaroos in terms of social rank threat or
physical threat.
The Kangaroos :
• A willingness to move through and within school buildings.
• Prepared to graze close to school buildings at night and during holiday periods.
• Staff and visitors note that EG are “quiet “ and reluctant to move when approached.
Risk mitigation features :
• Staff and students aware of kangaroo risk through education programs, kangaroo SOP and
persistent reinforcement.
• Staff protocol in place to move on EG when in student contact areas.
• No history of kangaroo aggression.
• Children being seen by kangaroos (and subsequently habituated) for short periods within
school hours during meals and play meal times and only during school terms.
• Potentially children at play may be a deterrent to kangaroos as play is often noisy and fast
paced and may appear to be aggressive or assertive to kangaroos.
• Good clear visibility throughout areas where students and kangaroos may mix.
The School Response
The school opted to initially address EGK risk through contact with the NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service (NPWS) who recommended a range of options including education awareness, staff
protocols and exclusion fencing.
The school arranged the NPWS to run kangaroo awareness training throughout the school then
among kinders as they commenced at the school. They simultaneously developed school protocols
around kangaroo surveillance, kangaroo removal from school grounds, instructions for staff or
children if they see EGK on school grounds and allocated specialist staff to deal with EGK on school
grounds.
169
Over time the school recognised the impost on staff time and identified funding options to
permanently address the issue through exclusion fencing.
Why exclusion fencing ?
Exclusion fencing was the single option to permanently and immediately address kangaroo related
risk on the school grounds.
PROS
• Effective long term treatment of EGK related risk. Students and staff made safe.
• Reduction in staff time involved in dealing with EGK on grounds.
• Reduction in staff risk in moving on EGK.
• Can still see EGK in area within and adjacent to school.
• Enhanced security with defined school perimeter, better definition of play areas and
segregation of public thoroughfares.
• Ancillary issues such as macropod grazing of school vegetable garden resolved.
CONS
• Cost and substantial staff time involved in getting the project right .
• Some impost on school amenity.
• Inconvenience around maintenance of gate closures at entry points.
• Maintenance of fence and surrounds.
Staff and community were supportive of the project. The school forum (parents and friends) partly
funded.
Some school neighbours viewed EGK as an important part of their environment and did not want
them excluded from their properties therefore limiting cheaper fence alignment and cost options.
The school also considered the amenity and view impost on the retirement village above the school
oval with fence type and location negotiated.
Features of the fence
The fence construction was staged over three phases pursuant to funding opportunities.
Stage 1. Chainwire fence along eastern side of school.
Stage 2. Black pool fencing adjacent to school buildings including entrance gates .
Stage 3. Chainwire fence along southern boundary including completion of links into existing
western fences.
Funding sources were a combination of parish schools board (school fees), federal government
grants, parent forum and school neighbours. Approximate fence cost $32 000.
170
SFX School Grounds, Boundary Alignment and EGK fence.
Dark Blue Line - School boundary
Red line - Galvanised steel chainmesh fence
Light Blue line - Black alloy pool fence
Yellow line - Existing fences
Pink dots - School entry points
School perimeter 800 metres
Kangaroo fence length 530 metres (includes existing boundary fences).
171
Comparison School Perimeter
Yamba Primary Public School 700 metres
Grafton St Josephs Primary 900 metres.
Predominant Fence Style
Black Alloy powdercoated (pool fencing), panels 2400 long 1600 high
Galvanised steel chainmesh with round posts / panels 2000 long 2000 high
Fence Features
Entire school fencing combines variable materials, styles, dimensions and age.
Fencing materials selected to :
• Provide durability within salt environment.
• Look good i.e. black colour selected.
172
• Suitable mesh size to avoid entrapment of kangaroos.
• Robust to stand up to damage by weather and students and maintain alignment over time.
• Ensure the fence is looked through not at.
• Minimise costs.
• Provide height to discourage kangaroos.
• Integrate with brick school buildings.
• Be easily accessed by students at gate points.
Gates are not self-closing but compliance levels are good, some staff time is taken closing bicycle
entry points and other gates at end of school day
Fence Location selected to :
• Secure all student play areas. Low risk areas such as carparks are excluded from the fence.
• Reduce costs by integration with pre-existing fences and buildings.
• Ensure school access points not unduly changed or made difficult to use.
• Better define school boundary.
• Limit potential for unauthorised access from public thoroughfares i.e. walking track to east.
• Maintain amenity and views for retirement village along southern boundary.
• Permit maintenance access to adjacent grounds and fence.
• Blend into vegetation and school landscaping.
• Not impede kangaroo movement adjacent to school grounds.
The resident kangaroos have been forced into adjoining areas including the sports ovals. Two
individuals remain regularly within the school grounds in unfenced areas. There was likely to be
small scale social disruption as school based EGK moved into other areas adjacent.
SFX School Ground and Kangaroo Fence Entrance Points
Main Entrance to north
174
Integration with existing fences / Use of different materials
Integration with buildings
Limited impost on school and neighbouring amenity / view
175
Gates to allow escape of animals
Definition of student play area and school boundary
Defines school boundary and limits unauthorised access from adjacent public
thoroughfares
176
Low priority low student risk areas remain outside of the kangaroo fence
Kangaroos displaced to adjacent suitable habitat
In conclusion :
The exclusion fencing has met project objectives. No EGK have been within the fence since
completion 3 months ago.
177
APPENDIX 2: Macropod Autopsy Protocol for Australian Registry of
Wildlife Health
Required Samples:-
1. Serum for PCR (freeze) – small red top
2. Blood smear – 2x slide and slide holder
3. Liver, spleen, kidney, bladder, gonad, lung, trachea, thyroid, heart, skeletal muscle,
stomach, small and large intestine, brain, eyes (formalin) – large pot
4. Fresh samples of liver, kidney, lung, brain (freeze) – small pot
5. If any lesions are found please formalin fix half and freeze half
6. Brain squash prep – slide and slide holder
7. Kidney impression smear – slide and slide holder
8. If unusual worms noted then place in formalin
9. In-house faecal egg count if large worm burden noted.
10. In-house PCV/TSP
11. Take digital images if advantageous.
Paperwork:-
1. Fill in Australian Registry of Wildlife Health submission form
2. Record in Veterinary Practice Management Software under WIRES with its Call No.
3. Record on Registry Sample Sheet
Storage:-
1. Store formalin samples and smears in separate bags
2. Frozen samples stay in freezer
3. Store until 5 sets of samples collected
Courier to Taronga Zoo:-
1. Contact Jane Hall to organize courier to Taronga Zoo
2. Packaging :-
a. Remove liquid formalin from samples
b. If sending on ice, please wrap container of formalin tissues in bubble wrap or similar
to protect them from the ice
c. If sending on ice, please wrap smears in bubble wrap or similar to protect them from
ice.
3. Address to :-
Jane Hall, Australian Registry of Wildlife Health
Taronga Zoo, End of Whiting Beach Road
Contacts: - Jane Hall (JHall@zoo.nsw.gov.au) or Karrie Rose(krose@zoo.nsw.gov.au)
Australian Registry of Wildlife Health; Taronga Conservation Society Australia, P.O. Box 20, Mosman,
NSW, 2088. Tel 02 9978 4788, www.theregistry.org.au
178
APPENDIX 3: Summary results from the Survey Monkey community
on-line survey regarding community attitudes towards kangaroos and
kangaroo management
Representative survey comments:
For a Kangaroo that has attacked a person, what should the best outcome
be?
• Education, in my opinion the chances are that a human has instigated the aggression by
approaching or other interfering with the Kangaroo
• Better educate people to interact with kangaroos safely
• Education for people about interacting with kangaroos and understanding warning signs etc. for
aggression
• Highly visible tagging if possible
• More details of the circumstances needed for a decision
• How do you know which one it was?
• It depends on the circumstance, relocation if necessary as assessed by someone with knowledge
of roo behaviour, never euthanasia unless for medical reasons
• As they belong to family groups it would be hard to relocate them
How should Kangaroos that appear aggressive or threatening be managed?
• They need to be moved on using a loud noise or other appropriate methods. When two big
males fight, this can be a problem but they can be moved to a larger clear area without getting
involved.
• Aggression is a normal part of their natural behaviour during mating and fighting with each
other.
• Kangaroos are not aggressive when they are not in a threatening situation, so stop trying to
manage them.
• Assess. Make an educated decision from evidence and act accordingly
• I have never experienced a kangaroo being aggressive or threatening - on my own lawn I often
pass within a few metres of them, including large males.
• Remove the food source
• People need to be educated as to how to behave around kangaroos so that they do not become
aggressive or threatening
• Juvenile males practise fighting each other, mature males sometimes become aggressive when
sniffing around a female, but in 28yrs living in Safety Beach I have never had a problem with any
roo, mainly by leaving them alone and if necessary walking around them rather than forcing a
confrontation, e.g. to get to the clothes line.
Feel free to leave any additional comments relating to Kangaroos and
Kangaroo related issues in your local area. 184 responses; again the following is a representative sample:
• I do not consider wild kangaroos to be a concern on the roads for alert drivers who don't speed,
nor do I consider them dangerous unless provoked. The biggest threats to kangaroos' lives come
179
from the actions of humans, e.g. (speeding) vehicles and unleashed dogs; therefore I believe the
onus is on us to take responsibility in preventing negative/dangerous interactions.
• Large male kangaroos can be unsettling early in the morning on look at me now headland,
especially if you have to walk between them and females.
• We love the kangaroos in our area but believe numbers to be increasing as other people fence
their properties to keep them out. We have had a number of people on our property who have
been attacked but not hurt seriously. My wife does feel intimidated if a lot of large kangaroos
are in the garden and this sometimes prevents her from going into that part of the garden. My
son and an elderly visitor have been pushed and shoved by kangaroos on our property. Our
property is unfenced
• I like the kangaroos visiting our garden. I am concerned that dogs that are not fenced in properly
may chase them.
• Dogs should be trained to not chase kangaroos, or be appropriately restrained. The numbers of
kangaroos when we first arrived here 8 years ago was perfect. The numbers have increased
making use of the garden sometimes difficult, especially when large males or large numbers are
close to the house. I believe the increase in numbers on our property is at least in part due to
more people fencing their properties.
• Educating home owners is important particularly in driving more slowly on our local roads &
keeping dogs secured at night
• I walk daily and have never had any issues but often see people’s dogs chasing the roos and roos
getting caught and injured in fences… Fences around entire properties should be banned and the
only fences allowed should be for smaller enclosures to prevent domestic dogs getting out.
• They are part of our world here, they are a delight to see and I have had no problems with them.
I think if people understood how to live with them and didn't feed them or try to get too close
physically to them they would be harmless.
• Before fencing our property, our two young girls (aged 5 and 6 at the time) were attacked on
two separate occasions by females with joeys. Both were unprovoked. The girls were playing
quietly on our property.
• The kangaroos are not the problem. People and dogs are the problem. I have witnessed dogs
attacking kangaroos on more than several occasions at Heritage Park.
• The numbers of kangaroos are definitely increasing and something needs to be done to control
numbers
• Kangaroos have attacked people in our area. They jump our fence, we have spent over $6000 in
vet bills for our dogs because of kangaroos.
• It’s a bit hard to be so positive after being attacked twice by the same roo. They are not afraid of
anyone.
• I feel there are far too many kangaroos in this area there are more homes being built and there
is less land for feeding. The males are too big and dangerous. They should be culled.
• My main concern is the interaction between kangaroos and children in the area, our daughter
was attacked by a female with no provocation or whatsoever, since then we have got a dog, the
children do not leave the house without the company of the dog, as they don't trust the
kangaroos. In our neighbourhood almost everybody has a story about a kangaroo attack. We
absolutely love them, but we are aware of how dangerous they could be, our 12 and 7 year old
children are not allowed to walk to the bus stop on their own due to the amount of kangaroos
they would have to walk by