ATT1 Kangaroo MP May 2017 final - Coffs Harbour City Council

Kangaroo Management

Plan for the Coffs Harbour

Northern Beaches

June 2017

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


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


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


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?


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?


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


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.


management objectives 4 - 7 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management





management objectives 8 & 9 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management





management objectives 10 - 13 and associated outcomes (see section 12 text) with management




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.



12

Information Box 3.



13

Information Box 4.



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.

22

Figure 5. A framework for evidence-based management of Coffs Harbour’s peri-urban kangaroos

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 [email protected] 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;

62

Box 7.

Media release of December 2015 announcing the On-line Kangaroo

Community Survey

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


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


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


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


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.

81

Box 8.

Media release of February 2016 announcing the Community

Kangaroo Information Days

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.

94

Map 14. Road-based kangaroo count transect – Avocado Heights.

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.

98

Map 18. Foot-based kangaroo count transect – Woolgoolga Diggers Golf Club

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.

100

Map 19. Buggy-based kangaroo count transect – Darlington Beach Holiday park

101

Figure 29. Kangaroo count results – Darlington Beach Holiday Park

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).

103

Map 20. Ten Kangaroo Management Units (KaMUs) on the Coffs Harbour Northern Beaches

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


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


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.

110

Map 22. Heritage Park – Avocado Heights Kangaroo Management Unit.

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).


• 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;


• 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


• 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).


• 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;


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.

113

Map 23. Arrawarra – Darlington Park – Lorikeet Park Kangaroo Management Unit.

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).



• 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).


• 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.


• 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.


• 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;


by residents.


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.






116

Map 24. Safety Beach - North-western Woolgoolga Kangaroo Management Unit.

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.



• 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.


• 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).


• 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;


the high potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth in this and

the adjoining KaMU (Map 25).


• 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;


by residents.


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.






119

Map 25. Central - South Woolgoolga Kangaroo Management Unit.

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.



• 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.


• 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).


• 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


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.


• 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;


by residents.


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.


information, as well as gardening ideas to deter kangaroo grazing and trampling. Inclusion with




122

Map 26. Emerald Beach – Sandy Beach – Hearnes Lake Kangaroo Management Unit.

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).



• 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.


• 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.


• 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;


the some potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth;

124


• The local community was not directly engaged during the kangaroo planning project.


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.






125

Map 27. Corindi Beach – Red Rock Road Kangaroo Management Unit.

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.



• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Low;

• Future urban growth areas: Nil;


• Population trajectory: Assumed stable at this stage.


• Nil.


• 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.






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.

127

Map 28. Corindi Valley Kangaroo Management Unit.

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).




around Mullaway.

• Future urban growth areas: Growth potential is limited but some is planned around Mullaway

and Arrawarra Headland (Map 29);


• Population trajectory: Numbers may be increasing in and around peri-urban Mullaway and

nearby semi-rural areas.


• Mullaway Public School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zones, a zoning that may facilitate


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.



• Moderate incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos as well as sick and injured

kangaroos;

• A relatively high incidence of dog attacks on kangaroos;


some potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth;



129






resourcing to achieve a long term solution; Council’s Environment Levy is a potential funding source


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.






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).




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);


130

Map 29. Mullaway - Arrawarra Headland Kangaroo Management Unit.

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.


• 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.



• 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;




Kangaroos are not considered to be in need of management intervention within this KaMU at this

stage.











132

Map 30. Moonee Beach – Forest Glen Kangaroo Management Unit.

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.



• Current kangaroo occupancy level: Low.

• Future urban growth areas: There is still some potential for urban infilling in this area (Map 31);


• Population trajectory: Numbers appear relatively stable at this time.


• Korora Public School is a Priority 1 Kangaroo Management Zones, a zoning that may facilitate


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.



• Low incidence of motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos and also low incidence of sick /

injured kangaroos;


some potential for kangaroo population increases associated with urban growth and

development in the area.





134











135

Map 31. Korora – Sapphire Beach Kangaroo Management Unit.

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)


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 &


program

No program Unlikely Major Medium Optional

Program delivery will

raise awareness and


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 &


program

No program; limited &

sporadic del iveryLikely Major High Yes

Program delivery will

raise awareness and


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


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)


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)


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)


Timeframe

Current Risk Rating

Negative kangaroo

impacts on people

due to lack of best

information


response



detail)

Action required?

(automatically

populated)


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)


Council open

space managers

incorporate

kangaroo-

unfriendly

approaches

Increased risk of

negative kangaroo

incidents with social,

economic & animal


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)


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)


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


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


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


Existing management

approach


Current Risk Rating

Responsibility /

stakeholder

Action required?

(automatically

populated)


response



detail)

Timeframe


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



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


localized impacts will

continue


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


NPWS Customer

Experience Division

CHCC Rangers enforce

Companion Animals

Act but education of

dog owners is

minimal



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


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


Action required?

(automatically

populated)


response



detail)

Timeframe


Objective (see


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



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


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


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



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


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)


response



detail)

Timeframe



Objective (see


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


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


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


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).


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).


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).


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).


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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 recreation 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

173

Bus Entrance to East

Eastern entrance via school hall

Western Entrance Maldon Place

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 ([email protected]) or Karrie Rose([email protected])

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

180

APPENDIX 4: Kangaroo Awareness and Safety Information Provided

to Visitors to Darlington Beach Holiday Park.

ATT1 Kangaroo MP May 2017 final - Coffs Harbour City Council

Documents

Transcript of ATT1 Kangaroo MP May 2017 final - Coffs Harbour City Council