N O R T H E R N B R A N C H

Guy Fawkes River National Park Horse Management Plan

For further information about this plan please contact:

The Manager, Dorrigo Plateau AreaPO Box 170Dorrigo NSW 2453ph: 02 6657 2309 fax: 02 6657 2145

Main cover image: View of Guy Fawkes River National Park (Sean Leathers © DEC)

Inset images (from left):- Mare and foal (Brad Nesbitt © DEC)- Trap at Wonga Flats in operation (Brad Nesbitt © DEC)

This publication should be cited as:

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2006) Guy Fawkes River National Park: HorseManagement Plan. Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Sydney South.

Published byDepartment of Environment and Conservation NSW59–61 Goulburn StreetPO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232

Ph: 02 9995 5000 (switchboard)Ph: 1300 361 967 (national parks information and publications requests)Fax: 02 9995 5999TTY: 02 9211 4723info@environment.nsw.gov.auWebsite: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

ISBN: 1 74137 976 8

Copyright © Department of Environment and Conservation NSW

Material presented in the report and bibliography can be copied for personal use or published for non-commercial purposes, provided that copyright is fully acknowledged.

July 2006

DEC 2006/391

i

Executive Summary The Guy Fawkes River National Park is regarded as a “biodiversity hotspot” with over 40different vegetation communities, 28 threatened plant species, 24 threatened fauna speciesand significant areas of old growth forest protected within the reserve. It containsspectacular examples of valley and rugged river gorges including the deeply incised GuyFawkes River Valley and the rugged gorges of the Aberfoyle, Sara and Henry Rivers. Italso conserves one of the most significant areas of wilderness in northern NSW.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), which is part of the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation, has a legislative responsibility to protect native habitatsand wildlife within its reserves. It also has a responsibility to minimise the impact ofintroduced species including horses. Horses have been bred on lands in the vicinity of thepark since the 1830s and since the 1930s have been present in a wild state in the areawhich, in 1972, became the Guy Fawkes River National Park. Management of horses in thenational park began in the early 1990s, with capture and removal programs focused onremoving horses from river flats along the Guy Fawkes River. Horse management,however, became particularly contentious following an aerial cull of horses in October2000 and subsequent community concerns regarding management of the horses, andheritage values.

In response, the Minister for the Environment commissioned a study into the heritage valueof horses in the park and indicated that, should the horses be found to have genuineheritage significance, they would be humanely removed from the park so that they can bemanaged properly in another location by people with an interest in their heritage value. InFebruary 2002 the Heritage Working Party reported that the horses have significant localheritage value.

The NPWS recognises that there is a wide range of views in the community about themanagement of horses in conservation reserves. For this reason it was decided that thecommunity must be involved in the development of long term solutions for managing thehorses in the park. In recognition of the local community’s interest and identified localheritage value, the NPWS established the Guy Fawkes River National Park Horse SteeringCommittee. This local community-based committee was instrumental in the developmentof this plan.

This document examines the range of horse management methods available, includingimmobilisation using tranquillisers, fertility control, fencing, shooting and roping, anddiscusses issues associated with each of the methods. During preparation of this plan, threecontrol methods were trialed and evaluated for their effectiveness in humanely capturingand removing horses from the park. Key recommendations from the trial are included inthis plan.

The main objectives of this plan are to:1) conserve and protect the natural values of the Guy Fawkes River National Park by

removing horses and to ensure the park remains free from horse impacts; and2) provide for the humane capture, handling and removal of horses from the park and

make them available to people interested in them.

The NPWS does not retain responsibility for horses once they are removed from the park.

The desired outcome of the plan is the park being managed free of horses, with the localheritage significance of the horses conserved by others through their management outsidethe park.

ii

Figure 1. Map of Guy Fawkes River National Park

��������

������ ����� ����� ����� �������

��

�� ����������������

���������

�� ���������

���� �����

������ ��! "������ �

�

����������

���������

����� ��������

�����������������������

� ����������

���������

�

������� �

#��$�����

"������ �

"��$���% ���

� ����$ ��� �

%��������

�

�� ������

��� ��� ��

�� �$��

�

����� ���

&������

��������

�� ��� �����

������'����

������������

���&������

������ ����� ��

����������

������ ����� ����������������������

������ ����� ����

������ ����� ����

�����

����

��

�����������

������� ����������

������������

����� �!�"���

#�"��$����

��%����

��!!&����

� ����$��������������

��� ������(�����������

��)��&��"������

�������

��

�� �����������

����

������

���� ���� ��������

�����������

��'���#������

(�"$���

�

�

�� ��� ������� �

������������

��

�����������

������

�����

���

�

�� ���������

��

���)����

������ ����� ����*����������

��� �������������

��� ��� ��

"�� ����$����(������ �

�������������

#� �(���� �

��( �� ������������"���

������ ��#��� �� ��

������� �����!����������"#�����$���� ������%��#

iii

Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................. i

1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 1

2. Background .................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Overview of the History and Management of Horses in the Park ..............................3 2.2 Significance of the Guy Fawkes River National Park ................................................8 2.3 Impact of Horses in the Guy Fawkes River National Park .........................................8 2.4 Legislative Framework .............................................................................................10 2.5 Horse Management Elsewhere in Australia and Overseas .......................................10

3. The Public Consultation Process .............................................................. 12 3.1 Guy Fawkes River National Park Horse Steering Committee ..................................12 3.2 GFRNP Horse Reference Group...............................................................................13 3.3 Community Consultation..........................................................................................13

4. Objectives ................................................................................................... 15

5. Horse management methods..................................................................... 16 5.1 Immobilisation Using Tranquillisers ........................................................................16 5.2 Fertility Control ........................................................................................................16 5.3 Fencing .....................................................................................................................17 5.4 Shooting....................................................................................................................17 5.5 Capture and Removal................................................................................................18

6. Trial of horse removal methods................................................................ 22 6.1 Trap Yards and Paddocks .........................................................................................23 6.2 Mustering Horses into a Net Trap.............................................................................23 6.3 Trial horse capture and removal program.................................................................23

7. Future horse control program.......................................................................... 25 7.1 Contractor Requirements ..........................................................................................25 7.2 Key Areas for Future Horse Control.........................................................................25 7.3 New Additions ..........................................................................................................26 7.4 Horses on Neighbouring Lands ................................................................................26

8. Future use of horses removed from the park.......................................... 27

9. Monitoring and Evaluation....................................................................... 29 9.1 Monitoring the Humaneness of Capture and Removal Program ..............................29 9.2 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Capture and Removal Program..............................29 9.3 Monitoring the Impact of Horses on the Flora, Fauna and Soils ..............................31 9.4 Monitoring the Environmental Impact of the Removal Program .............................31

10. Bibliography and References.................................................................... 32

Appendix................................................................................................................. 36

iv

Figures Figure 1. Map of Guy Fawkes River National Park ..............................................................ii

Figure 2. Current known horse distribution...........................................................................6

Figure 3. Potential horse distribution in the absence of horse control...................................7

Figure 4. A network of horse pads causing erosion on steep slopes in the Bobs CreekCatchment. ....................................................................................................................9

Figure 5. Tree chewing by horses on the Red Range Plateau................................................9

Figure 6. Trap located at Boban Hut....................................................................................22

Figure 7. Transporting the trapped horses ...........................................................................22

Tables Table 1. Projections of the number of horses that must be removed from the park annually

to reduce the horse population to zero in five years....................................................30

Table 2. NSW legislation and guidelines relevant to horse management............................36

1

1. Introduction The area managed for conservation aroundthe Guy Fawkes River includes the GuyFawkes River National Park, NatureReserve and State Conservation Area inaddition to lands recently acquired and inthe process of gazettal (Figure 1). For thepurposes of this plan these areas arecollectively referred to as the park. Thepark covers an area of 106 803 hectaresand is located 100 km north-east ofArmidale (30°30.6'S 151°40.2'E). Itreserves a diversity of land systems,including a section of the GreatEscarpment, part of the eastern edge of theNew England Tableland, the deeplyincised Guy Fawkes River Valley and therugged gorges of the Aberfoyle, Sara andHenry Rivers. The Park is renowned for itswild and scenic river country and protectsthe second largest declared area ofwilderness in northern NSW.

The Guy Fawkes River National Park(GFRNP) is regarded as a “biodiversityhotspot” with over 40 different vegetationcommunities, 28 threatened plant species,24 threatened fauna species and significantareas of old growth forest protected withinthe reserve. The park is part of thetraditional lands of the Gumbaynggirr,Ngarabal, Banbai and BundjalungAboriginal nations. It includes numerousAboriginal and European cultural heritagesites. The spectacular gorge systems andwaterfalls of the park ensure that most of itis relatively inaccessible, however, a rangeof recreational opportunities still occursuch as walking, camping, swimming,canoeing and liloing, abseiling, birdwatching, photography, sightseeing, andhorse riding on the Bicentennial NationalTrail.

Horses have been known in the area sincethe early 1830s. Management of horses inthe national park became particularlycontentious following the October 2000aerial cull and subsequent communityconcerns regarding management of thehorses and heritage values.

In March 2001 the Minister for theEnvironment commissioned a study intothe heritage value of horses in the park.The Minister indicated that, should thehorses be found to have genuine heritagesignificance, they would be humanelyremoved from the park so that they can bemanaged properly in another location bypeople with an interest in their heritagevalue. In February 2002 the HeritageWorking Party reported that the horseshave significant local heritage value.

In September 2002 the National Parks andWildlife Service (NPWS) established theGuy Fawkes River National Park HorseSteering Committee, a local community-based steering committee to assist theprocess of consultation, the humaneremoval of horses from the park and theirappropriate management outside thenational park.

This plan includes:

a description of the significance of theGuy Fawkes River National Park andwhy it must be protected;

an historical overview of the issue ofhorses in the park;

an overview of the research availableabout horses and their impacts in thepark;

an examination of the wide range ofattitudes held by the community abouthorses in national parks and theirmanagement and how the communityhas been involved in developing thisplan;

the role and responsibilities of theNPWS and how legislation andrelevant codes relate to this issue;

the objectives of this plan and anexamination of the range of controlmethods currently available formanaging horses;

a report on the trial of identifiedmethods for capturing horses; and

2

key areas for future horse control, andmethods of monitoring and evaluatingthe program.

The outcome sought in this plan is tomanage the park free of horses whileprotecting the heritage significance of thehorses through their management outsidethe park.

3

2. Background In Australia, an unowned free-ranginghorse is generally known as a brumby,wild horse or feral horse. The term brumbyis attributed to Sergeant James Brumby’shorses, which were left to run loose on hisland in NSW when he was transferred toTasmania in the 1830s. From then on,horses running loose began to be calledbrumbies (HWP 2002). A ‘feral’ animal isdefined as an exotic or non-native animaloriginally introduced for domesticpurposes, which has survived in the wild.Horses can become feral if they are left tofend for themselves (Dobbie et al. 1993).The use of the term feral horse, wild horseor brumby is often contentious dependingon experiences with and personal views onthese animals. For the purposes of thisreport, the term horse or free-ranging horsewill be used. This plan does not relate tohorses under saddle on the BicentennialNational Trail.

Horses first came to Australia with theFirst Fleet in 1788. The First Fleet horsesoriginated from Cape Town, South Africa,and are believed to have been Cape horsesor Barbs. The seven horses comprisedthree mares, a stallion, a colt and twofillies. Subsequently, a steady stream ofhorses arrived at the colony (HWP 2002).In eastern Australia horse numbersincreased substantially from 14 000 in1830 to 160 000 in 1850. Australia nowsupports the largest population of free-ranging wild horses in the world estimatedat more than 300 000 in 1993 (Dobbie etal. 1993).

2.1 Overview of the History andManagement of Horses in thePark Horse and cattle breeding first commencedin the Guy Fawkes area in the 1830s withthe establishment of the Guy FawkesStation and the Little Guy Fawkes Stationby Major Edward Parke and Major Rigneyrespectively. These stations adjoined one

another on the site of the current Ebortownship. By the early 1850s cattlestations had been established in thenorthern, eastern and western region of theGuy Fawkes catchment. Cattle and horseswere bred on these stations, significantproportions of which were never fenced(HWP 2002).

In the 1890s a number of stations in theGuy Fawkes area became involved inbreeding horses for the remount trade.Exports were initially to the British armyin India, and then to South Africa,Palestine and other countries. Horses atthis time were valuable and bred in largenumbers (Fahey 1984) particularly whencattle and sheep prices were low.

Horse breeding for this purpose continueduntil the early 1940s. Some horses bred inthe Guy Fawkes River area, were draftedfor use by the Light Horse in the NewEngland district during the Second WorldWar.

The Heritage Working Party (2002)reported that unclaimed horses had beensighted predominantly in the northernareas of what is now the GFRNP since the1930s. Prior to the purchase of lands in thearea by the NSW National Parks andWildlife Service, most unclaimed horses inthe area were controlled by the propertyowners/lessees. Wright (1971) reported inthe early 1900s “we used to shoot them(wild horses) to keep their numbers down”.However, during the wars, managementbecame less controlled due to a shortage oflabour. The first record of capturingunclaimed horses by local residents fortheir own use was in 1931 (HWP 2002).After declaration of the park in 1972,management of unclaimed horses in thepark area largely ceased until the early1990s.

2.1.1 History of control Trial programs for the capture and removalof horses in the park commenced in 1992.

4

Various methods of control wereattempted, including chemicalimmobilisation, trapping and mustering,and were carried out predominantly bymen on horseback, occasionally assisted byhelicopter. Helicopters in these instanceswere most commonly used to locate andshadow horse bands, applying pressure toquietly move them to areas where horseriders could then take over. Trapconstruction evolved over time, with themost effective being traps constructed ofheavy gauge synthetic netting.

Of the 156 horses removed from the parkbetween the period 1992 and 2000 somehave become exceptional riding horses,others pets. Many however were notvalued in this way and were sent to theabattoir. This fate is common for horsesthat are not valued due to their age, poorconformation, or wildness. This is also thecase for wild horse programs in the USAand New Zealand.

In October 2000, following a prolongeddry period, a severe wildfire occurred inGFRNP. This burnt out almost all the landsoccupied by horses and feed resources forthe horses were severely limited. Adecision was made to aerial cull the horsesin the park because the horses weresuffering from the lack of feed. A total of606 horses were culled during the three-day program, which was carried out inaccordance with best practice techniques.The cull received national media attentionand, although supported by conservationgroups, was for the most part reported withcondemnation.

2.1.2 Horse home ranges The living area (home range) of a free-ranging horse depends on the type ofcountry and the season, and so variesacross the landscape, both in Australia andother countries. Documented home rangesvary from seven square kilometres (km2)(Berger 1986) to 32 km2 (Feist 1971) inNorth America, and approximately 70 km2

in central Australia (Dobbie & Berman1990).

Limited information is available on thehome range of horses in GFRNP. In 1998three horses (a mare, a stallion and a colt)were fitted with radio collars and theirlocations recorded over a 17-month period.The mare remained within a 3.5 km sectionof the Guy Fawkes River with a homerange of 1.4 km2. The stallion remainedwithin a 4 km section of the Guy FawkesRiver with a home range of 1.2 km2. Incontrast, the colt travelled widely along thesteep slopes of the Aberfoyle and GuyFawkes Rivers and, in late autumn, hadclimbed off the river along steep slopesand ridges through an elevation of 550 monto the Red Range Plateau. Its calculatedhome range was 9.76 km2.

A ground survey of horses during 2002-03on the Red Range Plateau suggests aseasonal movement of horses from eitherthe Bobs Creek or the Lower Sara Riveronto this area of the western plateau.Counts over the four seasons varied from29 to 127 horses (Schott 2003).

Apart from this seasonal movement,mature horses do not willingly move fromtheir home range. Many horse bands in thepark have established territories, fromwhich they strongly resist being movedeven when pressured by horsemen and/orhelicopter. This has also been recordedwith horses in central Australia (Dobbie &Berman 1992). The maximum distancehorses have been moved along the GuyFawkes River is 6 km.

2.1.3 Horse population anddistribution Horses commonly occur along the grassyriver flats of the Guy Fawkes and SaraRivers, and their tributaries includingKittys, Bobs, Chaelundi and HousewaterCreeks. Figure 2 shows the current knownhorse distribution in the park based onaerial and ground surveys. Figure 3 showsthe potential area that will be occupied byhorses if there is no control of horses in thepark.

Horses normally breed during spring andsummer with foaling concentrated over the

5

same period (Dobbie & Berman 1990).Eberhardt et al. (1982) found that horsepopulations could increase by 20% peryear when resources are not limiting.Females reach sexual maturity in 12 to 24months and once mature are capable ofproducing a foal each year. Howeverpregnancy stress usually results in theraising of one foal per 2 years, theintervening year allowing them to recoversufficient body condition to supportanother pregnancy (Wagoner 1977).

Foaling rates in GFRNP have not beenstudied, although there is information onfoal numbers from aerial surveys. An earlysummer survey in 1998 recorded 13 foalsamong 133 horses. As females compriseapproximately 42% of the population (seesection 2.1.4), this suggests a foaling rateof ~23% for that year. During the trialcapture program on the Red Range Plateauduring April to December 2004, 114horses were captured. All mares 12 monthsor older were found to be either pregnantor had recently foaled. This may be aresponse to that year’s good conditions,with abundant feed and water available inthis area of fertile soils and improvedpasture.

In the wild, the main causes of death areassociated with drought (throughstarvation, thirst and eating poisonousplants) and internal parasites in foals(Dobbie et al. 1993). The abundantgrasslands and permanent water present inthe GFRNP means that thirst, starvationand plant poisoning are not often asignificant population control in the park.

The percentage of foals that survive tobreeding age in the park is not known.

The population growth rate of free-ranginghorses in Kosciuszko National Park hasbeen estimated at 8% per year (NPWS2002). In the Guy Fawkes, a physicalexamination of a sample of 58 horses in2000 showed 33% of the horses wereunder 2 years of age suggesting thepopulation growth rate in the GFRNP maybe as high as 16% per year. Section 8.2considers the implications of populationgrowth on the proposed horse capture andremoval program in the park.

The NPWS is working with researchersfrom the University of New England toinvestigate methods of improvingestimates of horse density, distribution andpopulation in the park. Populationmodelling, based on an aerial survey in2005 and ground counts, indicates that thepopulation of horses in the park may be inexcess of 300 horses. It is important tonote however that there are populations ofmanaged and free-ranging horses onadjoining lands that can make their wayinto the park. The NPWS is working withneighbours to develop strategies to managethe movement of horses betweenneighbouring lands and the park.

Assessment of the total horse populationand population growth rate within the parkwill be continued. This information willguide monitoring programs to assess theextent to which horse removal techniquesare successfully reducing the overall horsepopulation.

6

Figure 2. Current known horse distribution

7

Figure 3. Potential horse distribution in the absence of horse control

8

2.1.4 Horse band size andcomposition A sample of 122 horse bands from 5different horse surveys conducted in thepark between 1997 and 2001 shows themost common band size is 5 horses. Largerbands of up to 45 horses have beenrecorded during periods of severe foodshortage and during large-scale wildfires inthe park. These larger bands are possiblydue to a breakdown in territorialboundaries during these extremeconditions.

A sample of 58 horses in 2000 showed theaverage age of horses in the park is 4.7years with the oldest recorded at 18 yearsof age. The majority of the horses were 5years or younger (68%), with 33% lessthan 2 years old and 8% over 10 years ofage. Sex ratio was 58% males and 42%females.

The majority of the horses in the park arebays or browns representing together 61%of the population. The next most commoncoat colour is buckskin (14%) with theremaining 25% made of variouscolourations. Some local horse breedersgroup cream, buckskin, dun, paint andcremello colours together as one groupcalled “creamies”. When this is done, the“creamies” represent 30% of thepopulation.

2.2 Significance of the GuyFawkes River National Park The park protects one of the mostsignificant areas of wilderness in northernNSW. It contains spectacular examples ofvalley and rugged river gorges includingthe deeply incised Guy Fawkes RiverValley and the rugged gorges of theAberfoyle, Sara and Henry Rivers.

Twenty-eight threatened plant species andtwenty-four threatened animal species havebeen recorded within the area. It is one of afew remaining areas where the presence ofdingoes and rock wallabies indicates amore intact native fauna. Vegetation

communities that are found within thereserve, especially river flats, forest redgum and yellow box woodlands, tablelandforests and kangaroo grass, are poorlyconserved elsewhere.

The geology, landform, climate, and plantand animal communities of the area, plusits location, have determined how it hasbeen used by humans. The park area has avaried land use history includingAboriginal resource use, grazing, clearing,mining, recreation and other uses whichhave had a marked influence on thelandscape.

The park area forms part of a large linkedcomplex of native vegetation that stretchesnorth and south along the Great DividingRange, taking in large areas of escarpment,plateau and tableland habitat. State forestareas adjoining the park provide importantforested links to Mann River NatureReserve and Nymboida, Chaelundi andCathedral Rock National Parks.

2.3 Impact of Horses in the GuyFawkes River National Park Introduced plants and animals have asignificant impact on the park. The NPWSis implementing control programs tomanage these impacts. Lantana andblackberry are controlled annually alongthe river flats where they threaten riverineand woodland communities. NPWS isworking with neighbours to address theimpacts of stray cattle, which trample andgraze native vegetation and spread weeds,through strategic fencing, maintenance offlood gates and stock removal. On theplateau area, wild dogs and foxes arecontrolled to minimise dog impacts onneighbouring pastoral operations and foxpredation on threatened native fauna.

There have been several studies on theimpact of free-ranging horses in the park.

A study by Andreoni (1998) foundextensive erosion associated with horsemovement, with the majority of erosioncommonly occurring on steeper slopes inwoodland areas (see Figure 4). Andreoni

9

reported a high density of manure pads inthe park with an average of 51 pads foundalong 100m x 10m transects on the valleyfloor and within grassland communities,covering an average of 184 m2 per hectare.

Taylor (1995) undertook glasshousegermination trials of free-ranging horsemanure collected from the park. Onaverage, one free-ranging horse is capableof passing 19 412 seeds per day, of which6.7 % are viable. Weed species whichsurvived gut fermentation were Bidenspilosa, Chenopodium sp., Einadia nutans,Cucumis zeyheri, Plantago sp., and theintroduced grasses, Cynodon dactylon andEleusine indica. The transference of theseresults to on site impacts in the park needsfurther study.

A study on the habitat use, densities andthe impacts of horses on Paddys LandPlateau was undertaken in 2002 (Schott2003). This study recorded numerous areaswhere horses have been chewing the barkof various eucalypt species (see Figure 5).

Further work on bark chewing wasundertaken by Ashton (2005) whoidentified bark chewing as being morelikely to occur in drainage lines; 10.9 % oftrees in drainage lines sampled wereaffected. Bark chewing has the potential toimpact upon species composition andstructure of the vegetation along drainagelines in the Red Range Plateau (Ashton2005). It is suspected that this behaviourstems from horses seeking minerals notavailable elsewhere in the environment butthis is yet to be confirmed.

Figure 4. A network ofhorse pads causingerosion on steep slopesin the Bobs CreekCatchment.(photo by Brad Nesbitt)

Figure 5. Tree chewing by horses on the RedRange Plateau.(photo by Sean Leathers)

10

In addition to these studies, the Universityof New England (UNE) has undertaken anoverview study to evaluate the impacts offree-ranging horses on the park. Thefindings suggest a relationship betweenhorse densities and soil compaction in thepark. In contrast to the work on the RedRange and Paddys Land Plateaus, thisstudy found no evidence of horsesdamaging saplings or trees in the GuyFawkes River valley (Jarman et al. 2003).

The UNE study (Jarman et al. 2003) alsoincluded an assessment of the feasibility ofusing various catchment areas of the parkfor more detailed research projects todetermine the impact of horses onvegetation, fauna and soil erosion in thecontext of the NPWS horse removalprogram. Jarman et al. 2003 recommendedan integrated set of studies takingmaximum advantage of the short-termpresence but forecasted removal of thehorses (see Section 8. Monitoring andEvaluation for further detail on researchrecommendations).

The impact of free-ranging horses has alsobeen studied in central Australia byBerman and Jarman (1988), in the southernhighlands of south-eastern Australia byDyring (1990) and in the Tasmanian alpineenvironments by Whinam et al. (1994). Acomprehensive review of horses, theirimpacts and management is contained inManaging Vertebrate Pests: Feral Horses(Dobbie et al. 1993).

The presence of free-ranging horses in theGFRNP is a common part of theexperience of visitors to the northern andwestern parts of the park (Jarman et al.2003). The sighting of free-ranging horsesin the river valleys and western plateaucountry may for some visitors be apleasurable experience. For others thesighting of a horse, or horse sign, in adeclared wilderness within a national parkcan detract from the wilderness experience.Research by Andreoni (1998) and Jarmanet al. (2003) showed that a walker orcamper in the main valley wouldfrequently encounter horse dung at close

range. Jarman et al. (2003) also reportedthat free-ranging stallions behave in waysthat some walkers or riders will perceive asaggressive and will therefore try to avoid.

Recreational riding is popular in the parkalong the Bicentennial National Trail(BNT). Since its outset, users of the BNThave been advised that “Brumbies are aconstant threat with individual bandsprotecting territorial boundaries at eachbend of the (Guy Fawkes) river so travel asa tight group to discourage the stallionsfrom interfering” (BNT 1991). The draftcode for horse riding in national parksalong the BNT states: “Avoid usingstallions and mares in season in areaswhere brumbies are known to run. Horseshave been lost from yards due tobrumbies.”

2.4 Legislative Framework There is a range of legislation that providethe framework for the management ofhorses within Guy Fawkes River NationalPark. These are listed in the Appendix.

2.5 Horse ManagementElsewhere in Australia andOverseas There are several examples of themanagement of free-ranging horsepopulations in fragile environments.

The Bureau of Land Management, USA,has a policy which aims to have a self-sustaining population of healthy free-roaming horses and burros in balance withother uses and the productive capacity ofthe habitat. Under their regulations (BLM1971), a wide range of managementpractices is available, while penalties arelisted for prohibited acts.

The Kaimanawa Wild Horse Plan (DoC1996) has sought to preserve and limitfree-ranging horses at Waiouru, NewZealand. This plan has looked at the rangeof their associated values, benefits andliabilities. It recommends a strategy thatincludes a review of location options for

11

the horses based on monitoring. Inaccordance with the plan, the herd wasreduced significantly in 1997 with aremnant herd of around 500 horsesretained in the southern section of theWaiouru Military Training Area. A revisedplan has now been prepared (DoC 2004).

Approximately 400 horses were present inCoffin Bay National Park, South Australia,when it was gazetted in 1982. Althoughthey were initially proposed to beremoved, an agreement was made betweenNPWS SA and the Coffin Bay PonySociety (CBPS) in 1991/92 to allow a herdof 20 mares and their suckling foals plusone stallion to remain in the park as amanaged herd. Under the agreement theCBPS were required to manage the herd.Ponies in excess of the allowable 21 headwere transported off park and sold toCBPS who, in turn, sold them on atauction. Additional horses were initiallytrapped in yards set up around water holesin summer but later lured into trap yardsusing hay bales. The remaining horseswere removed in February 2004 and arenow managed on private holdings by theCoffin Bay Pony Society.

In the 1980s a cull of free-ranging horsesin Namadgi National Park in the ACT wascarried out by shooting. While this wassuccessful in removing a small populationof horses there was mixed public reactionabout the cull.

A Wild Horse Management Plan for thealpine area of Kosciuszko National Parkwas prepared in 2002 by NPWS and theKosciuszko Wild Horse ManagementSteering Committee. The Plan wasproduced in order to reduce the impacts ofhorses that had begun to move into thefragile alpine areas of the park in summer.As part of the Plan, three capture andremoval methods were trialed: trapping,roping and mustering. The implementationof the Plan is proceeding using trappingunder a contract agreement.

12

3. The Public Consultation Process There is considerable public interest in themanagement of horses on conservationlands in NSW.

In October 2000, a cull of free-ranginghorses was carried out in Guy FawkesRiver National Park (GFRNP) whichreceived national media attention. Inresponse to community concerns, the NSWMinister for the Environment banned theaerial culling of horses in national parks inNSW and set up an independent inquiryinto the cull and the future management offree-ranging horse populations in GFRNPand parks elsewhere in NSW (English2000, 2001a, 2001b).

A workshop was held in February 2001 atDorrigo to consider local communityopinions on the management of horses inthe GFRNP. The objectives of theworkshop were to: establish a clear picture of local

community issues on the managementof horses in the park; and

establish what the local communitysees as suitable methods to reduce thenumber of horses in the park withoutusing aerial shooting.

One of the outcomes of the workshop wasthat some members of the local communitywanted acknowledgment of the heritageand historical value of free-ranging horsesin the GFRNP.

In March 2001, in response to theoutcomes of the Dorrigo workshop and therecommendations from the independentinquiry into the aerial cull (English 2000),the Minister for the Environmentcommissioned a study into the heritagevalue of horses in the park. The study wasto provide an opportunity for a thoroughinvestigation into the view of many localsof the area that these horses are ofhistorical significance. The Ministerindicated that should the horses be foundto have genuine heritage significance thenthe horses would be humanely removedfrom the park so that they can be managed

properly in another location by people withan interest in their heritage value.

The Heritage Working Party comprisedfive local community representatives whohad an acknowledged involvement with,and an interest in the history of horses inthe GFRNP, a representative from theWaler Horse Society and a memberappointed by the NPWS. The workingparty was chaired by Associate ProfessorFrank Nicholas from the University ofSydney’s Centre for AdvancedTechnologies in Animal Genetics andReproduction. In February 2002 theHeritage Working Party (HWP) reportedthat the “… horses have significant localheritage value, sufficient to warrant theirbeing managed on this basis” (HWP 2002).In response to this finding the Ministerannounced a local community-basedsteering committee to assist the process ofconsultation and the humane removal andappropriate management of horses fromthe Guy Fawkes River National Parkoutside the park.

3.1 Guy Fawkes River NationalPark Horse Steering Committee The GFRNP Horse Steering Committeeincluded representatives from the HeritageWorking Party, RSPCA, veterinarians,experienced local horse handlers, locallandholders, local horse interest groups,the NPWS Regional Advisory committee,the Rural Lands Protection Board, theLocal Aboriginal Land Council and theNPWS. The steering committee’s terms ofreference were to assist the process ofconsultation and the humane removal andappropriate management of horses fromthe Guy Fawkes River National Parkoutside the park. The establishment of thesteering committee also provided theopportunity for local people withexperience in handling horses in ruggedcountry to be involved in developing themost appropriate method to humanelyremove the horses from the park.

13

The objectives of the steering committeewere:

to identify and advise on the mostappropriate techniques for the humaneand efficient capture and handling ofwild horses in the park;

to identify and advise on the mostappropriate methods for the removal ofcaptured horses from the park;

to assist in the production of a strategyfor the capture, handling and removalof wild horses from the GFRNP;

to identify and advise on options forthe future management of the wildhorses once removed from the parkand preserve identified local heritagesignificance;

to ensure capture and transportmethods comply with the “Code ofpractice for the capture and transportof feral horses” (English 2001b);

to represent the community’s views onthe future management of wild horsesremoved from the park;

to ensure capture and removal methodsdo not cause a significant impact onthe environment; and

to ensure the safety of all personnelinvolved in capture and removaloperations.

The steering committee met on fiveoccasions between October 2002 and July2003.

3.2 GFRNP Horse ReferenceGroup In December 2004 the GFRNP HorseReference Group was established toprovide expert advice and assistance toNPWS in the ongoing planning andimplementation of horse management inthe park. This small, specialist groupincludes representation from the RSPCA,researchers, the National ParksAssociation, horse interest groups, locallandholders and the NPWS RegionalAdvisory Committee.

3.3 Community Consultation It is important, through the consultationprocess, to identify the range of valuesheld by people and the range of issues thatneed to be considered in developing ahorse management plan for the GFRNP. Itis evident from the outcomes of theDorrigo workshop and from the horsemanagement workshops and informationsessions held in Kosciuszko NP that themanagement of free-ranging horses is avery polarised issue. It is also evident thatsome people view horses differently toother feral animals such as foxes, wilddogs, pigs and goats.

The NPWS has adopted a staged approachto community consultation on this issue.These stages are as follows:

Stage 1: Public Workshop(February 2001) This local community stakeholderworkshop was held in Dorrigo to gaugepublic views on future management ofhorses in GFRNP.

Stage 2: GFRNP Heritage WorkingParty(March 2001 – February 2002) The working party was set up in responseto the outcomes of the public workshop,and following recommendations from anindependent inquiry into the aerial cullingof horses in the park. The Minister for theEnvironment established the working partyto undertake a study into the heritage valueof horses in the park.

Stage 3: GFRNP Horse SteeringCommittee(October 2002 – July 2003) Established to assist the process ofconsultation and the humane removal andappropriate management of horses fromthe Guy Fawkes River National Parkoutside the park.

14

Stage 4: Exhibition of Draft HorseManagement Plan(December 2003 - March 2004) The draft version of this plan was placedon public exhibition between 17 December2003 and 26 March 2004. Two publicmeetings were held in the local area (atDorrigo and Guyra) to raise awareness andassist those seeking to comment on theproposed plan. A total of 76 submissions,covering 23 issues, were made on the draftplan.

Stage 5. GFRNP Horse ReferenceGroup(December 2004 - Present) Established in December 2004, this expertreference group was set up to assist NPWSin reviewing the planning andimplementation of the GFRNP horsecapture and removal program.

Stage 6: Keeping the communityinformed(Ongoing) Community updates on the implementationof the GFRNP Horse Management Planwill be provided into the future.

15

4. Objectives The primary objectives for a HorseManagement Plan for the Guy FawkesRiver National Park are to:

conserve and protect the natural valuesof the Guy Fawkes River NationalPark by removing horses and toensure the park remains free fromhorse impacts; and

provide for the humane capture,handling and removal of horses fromthe park and identify options for theappropriate management of the horsesonce removed from the park.

Further guiding principles are to:

ensure the humane treatment of horsesthroughout the process;

ensure the capture and removalmethods do not cause a significantimpact on the environment;

liaise with park neighbours to ensuresurrounding horse populations do notencroach on park lands;

ensure continued communityinvolvement in the process;

ensure that all control programscomply with the National Parks andWildlife Act and other relevantplanning instruments, legislation,policies and guidelines;

ensure that all operations are carriedout to ensure the safety of NPWS staff,contractors, volunteers and the public;and

ensure that removal methods areevaluated and modified as appropriate.

16

5. Horse management methods Horses have a high public profile, andhorse management practices byconservation agencies receive closescrutiny from a range of interested groups.Techniques employed in GFRNP mustsatisfy a wide range of criteria and must becontinually refined from the basic outlinespresented below and the techniquesdiscussed in various horse managementreferences (including Dobbie & Berman1992; Dobbie et al. 1993; English 2001a).An overriding consideration in managinghorses in the park is to ensure humanetreatment of the horses.

Different horse management techniquesare required depending on issues such asband size, sex and age structure, access,geography and season. A variety orcombination of different techniques maygive the most effective results, however,some methods will not be suitable forcertain circumstances. For effective controlof horse populations all options shouldremain available. The park’s remotenessand limited road access also posessignificant restrictions on the type ofcapture and transport techniques that canbe used.

The effectiveness of the horse removalprogram will be assessed by measuring thereduction over time of the park’s horsepopulations and preventing increases inlocal density and expansion of horsedistribution.

The following control methods have beenconsidered in the development of this plan.

5.1 Immobilisation UsingTranquillisers The use of dart rifles to delivertranquillisers to immobilise horses fortransport is seen as a humane and non-lethal way of solving the problemsinvolved in mustering horses. It is howeverimpractical for large-scale horse control asthe tranquilliser dosage must be calculatedfor each horse based on its estimated

weight. It is also technically very difficultto dart horses in terrain such as occurs inthe GFRNP due to the requirement toapproach horses as close as 40-60 metresto ensure effective use of dart rifles(English 2001a). Even if this problem isovercome by the use of salt licks or otherattractants, there is still a potential problemin the way that an animal may behavewhen it is darted. Some may in factsubside with little problem, but others willcertainly move away and may stumble orfall in rocky ground. There is almost noway of controlling the situation once ahorse is darted and until it falls down, withan ever present potential for injuries orworse to occur.

The use of chemical immobilisation isconsidered an impractical, expensive andlabour-intensive option. The method maywell be considered for the capture ofspecific horses but it certainly is notsuitable as an option for the removal oflarge numbers of horses from GFRNP.

5.2 Fertility Control Several techniques of fertility control canbe used or are under development,however they vary in cost andeffectiveness. Alternatives include surgicaldesexing (males and females),contraceptive implants (mares) andimmunocontraception (where males andfemales are immunised against their ownsperm or eggs). All three techniquescurrently require horses to be captured andhandled so the method has practical andfinancial limitations. However, therecontinue to be advances in this field andfuture refinements may allow thisapproach to become a more practicaloption. There are reported developmentsbeing made in delivery of the immuno-contraceptive by dart rifle. Research by theUS Bureau of Land Management islooking at delivery of an immuno-contraceptive via a time-release pellet thatcould provide 3-4 years of fertility control.

17

The use of fertility control as a primarytechnique in the GFRNP is not consistentwith the objectives of this plan. Thetechnology may however have a placecontrolling breeding in captive herds ofhorses once they are removed from thepark and being managed elsewhere. TheNPWS will continue to reviewdevelopments in this technique and theirapplicability to management of free-ranging horses.

5.3 Fencing Fencing along park boundaries may berequired to stop free-ranging horses frommoving into the park from adjoining lands.Restricted access, cost and rugged terrainlimit the suitability of this technique,although the NPWS will continue toinvestigate options to fence the boundariesof the GFRNP.

Erection of temporary holding paddocksand training fences, including electricfencing, within the park could be used tohelp educate horses to human-madebarriers. The paddocks would requireseveral gates/entrances that are closed oneby one, once the horses are familiar withthe enclosure. The inclusion of mineralblocks, artificial feed, and a watering pointwould encourage the horses to move intoand out of the area. Once the last gate isclosed and adequate food is provided, thehorses can be left in the enclosure for aperiod before gentling and removing them.

5.4 Shooting Views within GFRNP horse steeringcommittee on this technique varied. Somemembers supported the use of ground-based shooting for problem horses andhorses which cannot be relocated, but onlywhere it is implemented by appropriatelytrained and skilled persons working tostrict protocols. Others on the committeeonly supported shooting sick or injuredhorses. Despite majority agreement at theDorrigo community workshop (held inFebruary 2001) for retaining groundshooting as a technique for the control of

selected horses, there remains strongopposition to the shooting of horses insome sectors of the community. English(2001a) reported that ground shooting canbe a humane means of killing a horse whendone correctly.

Ground shooting will not be used as aprimary method of removing horses fromthe park. Shooting will be permitted wherea horse is found to be in a condition that itis cruel to keep it alive, or its age andphysical condition are such that it cannotbe re-homed. Animal welfare experts willdetermine the process by which thisdecision can be made. A report form todocument the reasons for the animal’seuthanasia on animal welfare grounds hasbeen developed in conjunction with theRSPCA. The RSPCA has advised that insome circumstances it may be moreappropriate to euthanase horses in the parkrather than put them through theunnecessary stress associated with loadingand transport, particularly where it isunlikely that a home will be found.Consideration will also be given by NPWSto the use of shooting to euthanase horsesthat threaten the success of trap sites orthreaten the welfare of horses within trapsites.

Aerial shooting of horses in national parksin NSW is banned. The Senate SelectCommittee on Animal Welfareinvestigated aerial shooting in 1991. Thecommittee reported that shooting horsesfrom helicopters is the only practicalmethod for quick, large-scale and humaneculling of large animals in inaccessiblelocations (Dobbie et al. 1993). The mainadvantage of aerial shooting is thatshooters can locate and get close to theanimal and any wounded animals can befollowed up and killed. There is howevernational and international concern with thelarge-scale aerial shooting of horses. Itmust be noted that the GFRNP horsesteering committee held differing viewsabout the humaneness of aerial culling as ameans of managing the impacts of free-ranging horses on the park. Some animal

18

welfare groups are opposed to the use ofaerial culling as a means to control horses.

5.5 Capture and Removal A key objective of this plan is to ensure thehumane treatment of horses throughout theprocess of capture and removal from theGuy Fawkes River National Park. Thereare a number of horse capture and removaltechniques. Issues associated with captureand removal techniques include:

environmental impacts associated withhorse riding;

stress on horses as a result of thecapture and then transportation fromthe park;

risk of injuries to riders and horses; environmental damage associated with

construction of horse traps; conflicts with horse riders and other

park users; the issue of horse riding (for

management purposes) in wildernessareas;

various degrees of efficiency amongthe different methods in capturinghorses; and

high spring and summer temperaturescan create welfare issues for bothcaptured horses and riders’ horses.

5.5.1 Trapping horses in yardsusing lures This technique involves attracting horsesto an area using a mineral block orcombination mineral block and artificialwater point, where water availability islimited.

Trap yards using a salt block as a lure havebeen successful in Kosciuszko NationalPark (KNP). A salt block may not beattractive to all horses and other mineralblocks may need to be trialed. A mineralblock with a high molasses content mayincrease palatability and desirability.

In KNP the block is placed on the groundor suspended from a tree. Once it isobserved that the horses are using the

block, portable yards are erected whichallow the horses access to the block. Atrigger is then set which activates a gatetrapping the horses inside. The horsescaptured are then led by mounted ridersand loaded onto a truck to remove themfrom the park. In KNP the number ofhorses in the trap determines the number ofriders required to lead horses out.Generally two riders are required to leadeach horse, depending on the terrain.

The method is labour intensive. It requiresscouting to determine where horses arefrequenting an area to ensure thatplacement of the mineral block is effective.It then requires regular checking of the useof the mineral block before the decision istaken to erect the horse yards. Once yardsare erected they need to be checkedregularly. This becomes more critical whenthe trap is set. The yards will always be inrelatively remote locations, so this processwill always require a large commitment oftime and people.

Horses are known to frequent damssituated on the Red Range Plateau ofGFRNP. This may provide an opportunityto trap horses. The technique wouldrequire fencing some dams on the plateau,leaving one dam available to horses,around which a large yard is constructedwith numerous exit/entry points. A mineralblock placed in the trap or suspended froma tree may assist in attracting horses. Oncehorses are moving in and out of the yard,exit points are closed off and the horsestrapped. A one-way gate could be utilisedas an alternative in this design. Oncetrapped, horse-handlers then work thehorses and prepare them for leading out orloading directly onto a transporter.

5.5.2 Trapping horses in a speciallyconstructed trap paddock A trap paddock is constructed with severalpoints of entry. The paddock may beconstructed in stages to allow horses tobecome used to the concept of a fencebarrier. It is preferable that the location ofa trap paddock contains a water point

19

within the paddock. A mineral blockplaced in the paddock or suspended fromtrees may assist in attracting horses. Oncehorses are moving in and out of the trappaddock the exit points are closed off untileventually all exits are closed and thehorses are trapped. The horses are thenbrought into a smaller trap yard. Horsehandlers then work with horses and overtime quieten and prepare the horses forleading out or loading onto a transporter.

5.5.3 Mustering horses into a nettrap This technique involves the mustering ofhorses into a trap yard constructed of highstrength fishing net. Long hessian wingfences that funnel horses into the trapopening assist the effectiveness of the trap.This technique requires searching out aband of horses and studying theirmovement, including behaviour and routesof travel when they are put under pressure.A trap site is identified along this route.Mustering into the trap is principally byhorse riders. Mustering may be assisted bya helicopter which locates and shadows thehorse band gently applying pressure tomove them in the direction of the trap,where horse riders take over and run thehorses into the trap opening.

This is a labour intensive approach, whichrelies heavily on finding a suitable locationfor the trap to be effective. The trap mustbe constructed quickly so horses are notaware of the activity. It can however,where horse densities are high, capture alarge number of horse bands. A separateholding enclosure could be set up as anannex to the net trap yard. Once in the trap,horses could be moved into the yards, thenheld, quietened and in time led by horseriders to trucks for removal out of the park.

5.5.4 Mustering using coacherhorses This technique involves combiningeducated, domesticated horses to free-ranging horse bands before the muster. Thepresence of coacher horses has been shown

to reduce stress in the free-ranging horsesduring the muster. Horse riders thenmuster the horses towards the trap site.Presence of coacher horses may, where theherd becomes unruly, allow the musterersto turn the herd until it settles and forwardmovement in the desired direction cancommence again. Once the horses aremoving in the desirable direction horsesare mustered into a trap or large yard.Where this technique has been used incentral Australia, the yards are very largeto allow horses to enter the yard at areasonable pace and still be able to pull upand settle before encountering panels.Injuries may occur if horses run into steelpanels. In the Guy Fawkes, captured free-ranging horses could be educated tofencing and trained to take artificial feedand then released as coacher horses. Thesehorses could assist to educate other horsesto take artificial feed and respect barrierfencing.

5.5.5 Mustering using Low StressBehavioural Technique Low stress mustering uses basic naturalanimal instincts combined with principleson working with the stock’s naturalinstincts to produce low stress outcomes. Ifimplemented effectively free-ranginghorses can be moved using this techniquewithout stress. This technique can beapplied by people working on foot,horseback or helicopter. Using thistechnique horses could be moved into alarge paddock where they could beeducated to fencing, then moved intosmaller paddocks where horse handlerswork with the horses to quieten andprepare the horses for leading out orloading onto a transporter.

5.5.6 Roping horses Roping is a method of capturing horsesfrom horseback. It involves the roping ofhorses from horseback, then leading thehorses to where they can be loaded onto atruck and removed.

This method has been used in Victoria toreduce horse numbers in remote areas. For

20

example, Parks Victoria records show thatduring the past few years an average of200 horses per year were removed by thismethod. Recent research also indicates thatthe average catch of wild horses using thismethod as reported by the Alpine BrumbyManagement Association (ABMA) ofVictoria is one horse every one to tworider/days, depending on the skill of therider.

The steering committee considers that thistechnique is not appropriate for the captureand removal of horses from the GuyFawkes River National Park due to thefollowing reasons:

The method results in a relatively lownumber of horses taken.

It is stressful on the horse and there isa risk of injury to the horse.

It requires skilled riders and thenumber of riders with sufficient skillsto capture horses is limited.

There is a risk to riders in remote anddifficult terrain.

There are environmental impactsassociated with running horses.

The activity may cause conflicts withother park users, particularly inwilderness areas where horse riding isnot permitted except for managementpurposes.

5.5.7 Implementation of captureand removal techniques There are various methods by which acapture and removal program may beimplemented in the Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park. These includeimplementation by NPWS staff,contracting the work to appropriatelyexperienced individuals or associations,using the assistance of appropriatelyexperienced volunteers, or by acombination of these options.

Local NPWS staff have been managinghorses within the park for many years,however there are also competing interestsfor staff with other park managementresponsibilities. Staff have detailed

knowledge of the reserve, experienceworking in and the risks associated withoperating in this very remote area. Somestaff also have good knowledge of localhorse behaviour and distribution.

Contracting provides the opportunity toutilise the horse handling expertise withinthe local horse community. Contracts canbe developed which are performance basedand therefore cost effectiveness can bemonitored. Contractors would need to haveappropriate specialist skills andexperience. Contracting arrangementscould be to individuals or to appropriatelyconstituted associations.

Contracting for horse capture and removalcurrently occurs in Victoria where ParksVictoria have contracted the AlpineBrumby Management Association(ABMA) for this work. Only a financialmember under subcontract to the ABMA ispermitted to capture horses in the park.The contract indemnifies Parks Victoriafrom claims, requires public liabilityinsurance, regular reporting and strictadherence to animal welfare legislation andcodes of practice. In Kosciuszko NationalPark, NPWS contracts out the trappingcomponent of that park’s horse removalproject.

NPWS has an existing program that allowsfor volunteers to undertake activitieswithin national parks. Where approved,these activities are covered by insurance.Mustering and trapping of horses byvolunteers has previously occurred in theGFRNP. Volunteers would need to haveappropriate specialist skills andexperience.

Arrangements for the capture and removalof horses from the park must addressownership of the animals captured, toensure to the extent possible that horsesremoved from the park can be managedproperly by people with an interest in theirheritage value (see Section 7 on future useof horses removed from the park).

21

5.5.8 Horses which cannot becaptured and relocated It is likely that individual horses that evadecapture on one or more occasions willbecome increasingly more difficult tocapture. It can also be expected that as thepopulation of horses in the park issignificantly reduced it will becomeincreasingly harder to locate and capturethe remaining horses. These situations maybe addressed by a proportional increase incatch effort and resourcing. Furthermodification of capture techniques mayalso be required to achieve the aim of allhorses removed from the park including areconsideration of alternative controlmethods including ground shooting.

22

6. Trial of horse removal methods There has been vigorous public debateabout the options for managing wildhorses. However when the various optionsare fully explored, it is apparent that thereare only a few options that provide humanetreatment of horses, are practical, cost-effective, environmentally sound, and meetlegislative and policy requirements.

In accordance with the recommendationfrom the Guy Fawkes Horse SteeringCommittee, several capture and removalmethods were investigated, trialed andevaluated in the park to determine theireffectiveness in the passive humaneremoval of horses from the park. The trialcommenced in 2004 with capture effortfocused in the south west of the park(including the Mt Gardiner, Red RangePlateau, Tallagandra and Boban Hutareas).

Following the trial, each method wasevaluated against the following factors: humane treatment of horses (based on

advice from animal welfare experts); safety/injuries to people involved; number of horses removed; environmental impacts of the removal

operations; resources required, including

personnel and funds; impact of the various methods on park

visitors; and success of contract arrangements.

The outcomes of the trial are documentedin a separate report (DEC 2005). Asummary of the relevant findings inrelation to each method trialed is providedbelow.

Figure 6. Trap located atBoban Hut(photo by Brad Nesbitt)

Figure 7. Transporting thetrapped horses(photo by Brad Nesbitt)

Horse Management Plan - Guy Fawkes River National Park 23

6.1 Trap Yards and Paddocks A series of trap paddocks and yards ofvarying dimensions and configurationswere installed at strategic locations in thepark. Yards were located near Boban Hut,Tallagandra Depot and Wonga Flats. Feedstations were located at Mount Gardener,Boban Hut, Dingo Spur, ‘300 acrepaddock’ and Spion Kopje (see Figure 6).

These locations were used to trial threebroad horse capture techniques. Tech-niques included: use of feed-based lures toattract horses; use of coacher horses toencourage horses to enter the captureareas; and low stress behaviouraltechniques for mustering horses intocapture areas.

All trap paddocks were successful incapturing horses but some configurationswere more efficient. The optimal trappaddock size was approximately 16hectares (40 acres) and contained a smallamount of natural shelter. Trip gate entrieswere found to be most effective. However,special care is required to ensure the safetyand wellbeing of foals within trap yards.

Trap yards were most effective when: used in conjunction with lures; linked with trap paddocks; located in areas where a number of

horse territories overlap; located in a sheltered area; yards are of adequate size to minimise

social conflict when horses areconfined (at least 30 panels); and

used in conjunction with manuallyoperated or remote trip gates are usedto enclose horses.

6.1.1 Trapping using lures Salt was the most effective lure, but it wasonly effective for the first few days ofcontact. Hay was the second most effectivefeed-based lure, with molasses being slowto attract horses but effective once horseswere established. Feed-based lures wereeffective in attracting horses from

inaccessible areas and attracting horsesinto trap paddocks.

6.1.2 Trapping using coacherhorses Three horses were selected from wildherds and educated to accept humancontact and handfeeding in the yards. Thehorses were released to rejoin wild herdswearing radio collars. Coacher horses wereuseful to:

bring wild horses from trap paddocksinto trap yards;

bring stray individuals back tocaptured herds;

teach wild horses to accept feed andhuman contact with a minimum ofstress; and

assist in loading horses onto transport.

6.1.3 Trapping horses using lowstress behavioural techniques Ground based and helicopter based lowstress stock handling mustering techniqueswere trialed. Helicopter mustering usinglow stress techniques was effective ininaccessible areas. Ground mustering usingthe same low stress principles waseffective in manoeuvring horses into trappaddocks and in educating horses oncecontained in trap yards.

6.2 Mustering Horses into a NetTrap The original framework for the horseremoval trial identified mustering horsesinto a net trap as a technique to beevaluated. It was decided not to trial thismethod after the more passive entrapmentmethods proved successful.

6.3 Trial horse capture andremoval program The trial was conducted during April toOctober 2005. The results of the trialshowed that horses in the park can betrapped effectively in both steel yards and

24

trap paddocks. As a result of the eight-month trial, 19 horse mobs totalling 114horse were captured. The combination of atrap paddock linked to steel yards withmultiple holding pens proved the mosteffective method. The use of feed-basedlures and coacher horses greatly assistedcapture success.

Once captured, horses required approxi-mately 4 to 5 hours of humanisation toprepare them for transportation. Amodified horse crate fixed to a 4WD truckwas used to transport horses from theremote capture sites at Boban Hut to atransfer point on the Wonga Plateau. Acommercial 2WD stock transporter wasthen used to transport horses out of thepark to a holding property run by the GuyFawkes Heritage Horse Association (seeFigure 7).

No horses were injured during the capturephase of the trial. One horse however waseuthanased on site after injuries sustainedin the wild were assessed as too serious tobe treated and one horse died duringloading. The program was supervised bythe RSPCA and reported as a success.

25

7. Future horse control program

7.1 Contractor Requirements Future contracts for the capture andremoval of horses from the park willrequire contractors to:

provide evidence of skills andexperience in the humane capture andhandling of horses;

comply with legislative provisionsrelating to the care, capture andtransport of horses, including the Codeof Practice for the Capture andTransport of Feral Horses (English2001b);

minimise environmental impact atcapture sites; and

record and report to the NPWS on theresults of any capture and removaloperations. This information willinclude:− a record of all horses removed,

including sex, colour and age;− completion of a Horse

Identification Record Form foreach individual horse captured;

− numbers/locations of horsessighted;

− record of daily activity at feedstations and trap sites; and

− advice on any accidents or injuriesto any horse or rider.

NPWS may provide assistance andmaterial where specific traps and fencingstructures are required to be constructed.The type of assistance and materials willbe specified in the contract.

7.2 Key Areas for Future HorseControl Given the success of the trial program, theNPWS is considering contracting captureand removal programs in other areas of thepark. The identification of key areas withinthe park for future horse control programshave been based on horse population

distribution, access for capture andremoval, and suitable landform for set-upof trapping infrastructure. These areas(described below) include:

the Red Range Plateau, Glen Nevis Plateau, Ballards Flat, Upper Pargo Creek Catchment, Boyd River, Chaelundi Creek, and Combalo Flat and Housewater Creek.

The Red Range Plateau area is a largeplateau area in the central western area ofthe park and divides the Aberfoyle, GuyFawkes and Sara River catchments. Thisarea was the site for the trial trappingprogram and all trapping to date. This areacurrently contains the Wonga, Boban Hutand Spion Kopje trap sites. The area willalso play a significant role in the removalof horses from the Bobs, Boban and KittysCreek catchments.

Glen Nevis Plateau area is a plateau areabounded to the north by Razorback Creek,the Sara River to the south, and BoydRiver to the east. This area has had nocontrol programs to date, however it has asignificant horse population and will be anintegral area for trapping horses from theSara River catchment as well as the plateauitself.

The Ballards Flat area is adjacent to theSara River between its junctions withSeven Mile and Bobs Creeks. Located inthe centre of the largest populations ofhorses, it is an area which will play a keyrole in trapping horses from the Sara Riverand lower parts of Bobs and Pargo Creeks.No trapping has been carried out to date inthis area due to the condition of the accessroad. Once Paddy Ross Trail is upgradedin 2006-07, trapping and transport will bepossible.

The Upper Pargo Creek catchment has aconsiderable population of horses. The

26

Spring Creek section of the catchment is arecent addition to the park and, as a formergrazing lease, it has good access and somedam development which would assist inrunning trapping operations. It providestrapping access to the rest of the UpperPargo Creek catchment.

The Boyd River area includes all the riverflats between the Sara/Boyd junction andCorner Camp. The area has vehicle accessinto the gorge as well as along the river.This will give scope for good trap siteselection and operational support. Thelargest population of horses in the mainGuy Fawkes/ Boyd Valley occurs in thisarea.

The Chaelundi Creek area encompasses thecatchments of Chaelundi, Petrogate andMest Creeks to the east of the Guy FawkesRiver below Chaelundi Falls and theLucifers Thumb geological feature.

The Combalo Flat and Housewater Creekareas lie in the central area of the GuyFawkes River Valley. While this section ofthe park has lower numbers of horses, it isthe only part of the central to upper partsof the Guy Fawkes River accessible byvehicle.

These sites may need to be expanded as thehorse population is reduced or whenopportunistic trapping is required.

7.3 New Additions The park has expanded in recent years withadditions from land purchases by NPWS.Some of these new additions have includedlands containing free ranging horses. Newadditions in the Mount Gardiner and RedRange Plateau area have included in excessof 100 horses.

7.4 Horses on NeighbouringLandsFree ranging horses are also known tooccur on neighbouring lands to the westand north of the park. NPWS will workwith neighbours to expand horse control tothese areas where appropriate to minimisethe movement of horses from private landsonto the park. Where possible, fencing ofboundaries will occur.

27

8. Future use of horses removed from the parkThe future management of the horsesremoved from the park must take intoconsideration that the horses have beenreported to have local heritage significance(HWP 2002). The key objectives of theplan, as stated above, are to conserve andprotect the natural values of the GuyFawkes River National Park by removinghorses and to ensure the park remains freefrom horse impacts, as well as providingfor the humane capture, handling andremoval of horses from the park. The issueof how best to preserve the local heritagevalue of the horses is addressed within thecontext of these objectives. The GFRNP Horse Steering Committeeconsidered a variety of future managementoptions for the horses once they areremoved from the park. These optionsinclude: private ownership via a horse adoption

system; ownership by an association, with

horses fostered out in family groups; creation of a Wild Horse Sanctuary in

the local area; establishment of a joint TAFE / Local

Aboriginal Land Council horsetraining program for Aboriginaltrainees; and

establishment of an Australian StockWHIP (Wild Horse IncarcerationPrevention) program.

These and other options will continue to beconsidered as options for the futuremanagement of the horses once removedfrom the park.

It is expected that some horses removedfrom the park will be highly valued and betrained as riding horses, carriage horses orkept as pets. Of the 156 horses known tohave previously been removed from thepark prior to the trial, some have becomeexceptional riding horses, others pets.Many however were not valued in this wayand were sent to the abattoir. This has also

been the case in horse programs in theUSA and New Zealand where horses endup being destroyed or sent to an abattoirbecause they are not valued due to theirage, poor conformation, or wildness.

The recognition that Guy Fawkes horseshave local heritage significance creates thepotential that many more of these horses,once removed from the park, will bevalued and retained.

Horses removed during the 8 month trialcapture program were provided to the GuyFawkes Heritage Horse Association(GFHHA), previously known as the GuyFawkes Wild Horse ManagementAssociation. This association was formedwith the specific objective of overseeingmanagement of the horses once they areremoved from the park. The purposes ofthe GFHHA include: to take possession of wild horses

removed from the GFRNP; to maintain the heritage value of the

wild horses; to oversee the management of the wild

horses once they are removed from thepark;

to maintain the Guy Fawkes Registerto enhance the value of the horsesremoved from the park;

to sell suitable horses outright and re-home suitable family groups to retaintheir heritage value; and

to maintain the search for a suitablesanctuary.

Over 90% of the 114 horses received bythe GFHHA during the trial captureprogram were either re-homed or retainedas breeding horses by the association. Allhorses sold by the GFHHA are recorded onthe Guy Fawkes Heritage Horse studdatabase and are eligible to be registered asa Guy Fawkes Heritage Horse.

In June 2005 the NPWS advertised anexpression of interest for organisations totake possession of horses captured in the

28

GFRNP. Requirements for organisationstaking receipt of horses include:

1. The organisation on receipt of horsesfrom the GFRNP will have soleresponsibility for the horses’ welfareand maintenance.

2. All horses must be branded beforedisposal or sale.

3. Horses may not be located, under anycircumstances, on lands that adjoin orare in close proximity to NPWSreserves.

4. The organisation agrees to not sell,loan or lease any horses to individualswho intend to locate the horses onlands that adjoin or are in closeproximity to NPWS reserves.

5. The organisation or subsequent owneragrees to pay the cost of retrieving anyhorses they have take possession ofthat are subsequently found on NPWSlands.

6. The organisation agrees to makeavailable for inspection by the NPWSand RSPCA any sites where horseswill be retained by the organisation.

Two organisations were selected from theexpressions of interest: the Guy FawkesHeritage Horse Association and the Savethe Brumbies Inc. Horses removed infuture programs will be offered to thesetwo groups.

The purposes of Save the Brumbies Inc.include to: further the welfare and well-being of

brumbies; publicise the plight of brumbies,

particularly those in national parks; ensure no action of the association will

lead to the destruction of a brumby;and

provide permanent or temporarysanctuary for brumbies.

Some of the horses received by Save theBrumbies will be located on a localproperty owned and operated by theDorodong Aboriginal Association (DAA).Under this arrangement DAA will workjointly with TAFE to undertake a horse-training program on the property to trainlocal Aboriginals in horse-handling skills.

All Guy Fawkes horses placed by Save theBrumbies are eligible for registration withthe Australian Brumby Horse Register andare also eligible for registration on the GuyFawkes Heritage Horse stud database.

NPWS will continue to consider otheroptions listed above for the futuremanagement of the horses once removedfrom the park.

29

9. Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation proceduresneed to be able to measure the success andor failure of this plan in achieving its statedobjectives. The objectives are:1. to conserve and protect the natural

values of the Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park by removing horses andto ensure the park remains free fromhorse impacts; and

2. to provide for the humane capture,handling and removal of horses fromthe park and options for theappropriate management of the horsesonce removed from the park.

The plan is a flexible document with thepotential to develop as the various controlmethods are implemented, evaluated andwhere necessary modified.

9.1 Monitoring theHumaneness of Capture andRemoval Program An important purpose of trialing captureand removal techniques was to ensure thatanimal welfare was not compromised. Atrial approach allowed for modifications totechniques to be introduced at theappropriate time. Animal welfare expertswill continue to be involved at appropriatestages in the further development andimplementation of this program, to adviseon horse welfare issues.

9.2 Evaluating theEffectiveness of Capture andRemoval Program The effectiveness of the horse removalprogram will be assessed by measuring thereduction over time of the population anddensity of horses in the park, as well astheir distribution within the park. Whilethe current horse population is not known,an estimate based on initial populationmodelling indicates the population may bein excess of 300. The NPWS is currentlyworking with researchers from the

University of New England to investigateways of improving the methods ofmeasuring change in horse populationdensity and distribution.

It is important to note that the horsepopulation will increase if the captureprogram removes fewer horses than theannual horse population growth.Projections for horse population growth,based on a stable environment, can becalculated if assumptions on total horsepopulation and growth rate are made. Thelimited data available suggest the growthrate per year may be between 10 % and20 % (see Section 2.1.3). Table 1 showsthe number of horses which need to beremoved each year to reduce the horsepopulation in the park to zero in five years,based on a range of scenarios based onhorse population size and growth rate.Horse population projections based on anestimated population of 300 horses, withan annual growth rate of 15% indicate that: 78 horses must be removed every year

to reduce the population theoreticallyto zero in five years;

if no horses were removed, thepopulation will continue to increaseand in five years the population wouldbe in excess of 600 horses; and

the horse population will increase by45 horses each year so a reduction inthe population in the first year canonly be achieved if more than 45horses are removed in that year.

It is important to note that horses will beharder and harder to locate and capture asthe population is reduced and gets closer tozero. This may be addressed in part by aproportional increase in catch effort andresourcing. It is also advisable to focus onremoving a significant percentage of thepopulation in each year of the programrather than removing the same set numberof horses each year. This approach meansin the last years of the program there willonly be a few remaining horses, however

30

there may be a requirement for the same ormore time and resources to locate andcapture these horses. Capture techniquesduring these later stages may also need tobe modified. This plan proposes theremoval of all horses from the park over afive-year period. As the current horsepopulation is not known, it is advisable tofocus on a high population estimate toensure catch effort is aimed at removing asignificant proportion of the horsepopulation. It is recommended to reducethe horse population by 50% each yearuntil the population is small enough thatonly a few horses remain to be removed inthe final year of the program. Assumingthe population may be as high as 300horses, then the capture program shouldaim to remove 150 horses in the first year.For this to be achieved, appropriateresourcing and well-developed capturetechniques will be required. An assessmentof the horse population will be requiredeach year to identify the number of horseswhich should be targeted for removal inthe following year.

The density and distribution of horses inthe park will continue to be monitoredusing the following methods: Population modelling from data

collected during aerial surveys ofhorses in the park using aerial markrecapture technique (Freeman 2005).Survey techniques will continue to berefined to increase their accuracy indetermining horse population densityand distribution.

Reports of horses from NPWS staffworking in the park.

Reports received from the public aboutthe presence of horses in the park.

This information combined with reportsfrom contractors (see section 6.4.1) willform the basis upon which to evaluate theeffectiveness of the program.

Table 1. Projections of the number of horses that must be removed from the parkannually to reduce the horse population to zero in five years Estimated

HorsePopulation

Size

Number of horses to beremoved annually if

population growth rateis 10%

Number of horses to beremoved annually if

population growth rateis 15%

Number of horses to beremoved annually if

population growth rateis 20%

150 36 39 42

200 48 52 56

250 60 65 70

300 72 78 84

350 84 91 98

400 96 104 112

Note: calculations do not include population change due to horses dying naturally or movement ofhorses on and off the park.

31

9.3 Monitoring the Impact ofHorses on the Flora, Fauna andSoils This plan recommends an integrated set ofstudies, as recommended by Jarman et al.(2003), which takes maximum advantageof the short-term presence but forecastedremoval of horses.

Recommended studies include thefollowing:

1. An enclosure study to reveal the short-term effect (mainly on plant growthand phenology, and on soilcharacteristics) of horse removal byexclusion.

2. An experiment to test the sensitivity ofselected native plant species tobrowsing pressure from horses.

3. Monitoring, within several majorcatchment areas, of the responses ofenvironmental variables to the localremoval of horses or reduction in horsedensity, focusing on vegetation cover,vertebrates and invertebrates, andestablishing benchmark values forpossible long-term monitoring of thesevariables.

4. Tests of the feasibility andeffectiveness of using remote sensingto monitor and evaluate changes inground cover resulting from theremoval of horses and cattle.

5. Monitoring of stock densities acrossthe whole of the park, to provide aspatial database for research andmanagement.

9.4 Monitoring theEnvironmental Impact of theRemoval Program The NPWS will undertake environmentalassessment of activities related to thecapture and removal of horses from thepark. It is important that removaltechniques do not cause greater

environmental damage than the existingpresence of free-ranging horses in the park.

9.4.1 Horse Trap Sites The set up and running of trap sites,depending on construction technique andlocation, may impact on the localenvironment. Salt lures placed on theground can kill vegetation and soil fauna.When using traps and trap paddocks thereis a concentration of horse impacts withinthe trap and associated yard or paddock.The erection of fences may impact onnative fauna movement and cause injuriesor death from entanglement.

Where feasible, existing fences and yardswill be used. Impacts at trap sites will bemonitored using fixed photo points at eachsite. Photo points will include the trap site,yards and surrounding area. Impacts offences on native fauna, includingincidences of fauna injury due to fences,will be recorded. At the completion of theprogram, all fencing and trap materials willbe removed from the park. If necessary,trap sites may require active intervention torestore the site to a natural condition.

9.4.2 Accessing remote locations Access may need to be provided to remoteareas of the park for the transport ofmaterials in to construct traps and for theremoval of horses from trap sites.Decisions on the type and provision of thisaccess by NPWS will be made on a caseby case basis and subject to appropriateenvironmental assessment.

Where road or track works are carried out,photo points will be set up to monitor theimpact at these sites and to provide a guidefor restoration works once the horsecontrol program is completed. At all timesenvironmental impact at these sites will bekept to a minimum.

32

10. Bibliography and References Alpine Planning Project Team 1989.

Alpine National Park: Cobberas-Tingaringy unit proposed managementplan. Department of Conservation,Forests and Lands, Victoria.

Andreoni, F. 1998. Evaluatingenvironmental consequences of feralhorses in Guy Fawkes River NationalPark. An unpublished report to NPWS.Department of Ecosystem Management,University of New England, Armidale,NSW.

Ashton, A. 2005. Bark chewing by thewild horses of Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park, NSW: Impacts andcauses. Department of EcosystemManagement, University of NewEngland, Armidale, NSW.

Bell, K.L. & Bliss, L.C. 1973 Alpinedisturbance studies: Olympic NationalPark USA. Biological Conservation5:25-32.

Berger, J. 1986. Wild Horses of the GreatBasin. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, USA.

Berman, D.M. & Jarman, P.J. 1988. Feralhorses in the Northern Territory:Volume I Ecology of feral horses incentral Australia and their interactionwith cattle. Report to the ConservationCommission of the Northern Territory.

Bevis, S. 2000. Horse Riding in CanberraNature Park. A consultancy report tothe ACT Equestrian Association Incand Duntroon Paddocks LandcareGroup. Water Research Foundation ofAustralia, Centre for Resource andEnvironmental Studies, AustralianNational University, Canberra.

BLM no date. Code of Federal Regulationsrelating to the Protection, Managementand Control of Wild Free-RoamingHorses and Burros. Bureau of LandManagement, USA. www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/regs.htm (last accessed22 March 06).

BNT 1991. Guidebook No 7: Killarney toEbor. Bicentennial National Trail,Toowoomba.

Bratton, S.P., Hickler, M.G. & Groves,J.H. 1977. Trail and campsite erosionsurvey for Great Smoky MountainsNational Park. Management Report 16,United States National Park Service,South East Region.

Braysher, M.L. 1993. ManagingVertebrate Pests: Principles andStrategies. Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.

Byles, B.U. 1932. A Reconnaissance of theMountainous Part of the River MurrayCatchment in New South Wales.Bulletin Number 13, CommonwealthForestry Bureau, Canberra.

Clement, R.F., Doyle, K.A. & Murray, J.G.1990. The significance of a majoroutbreak of quarantinable disease to theAustralian horse industries. AustralianVeterinary Journal 67:77-78.

Costin, A.B. 1954. A Study of theEcosystems of the Monaro Region ofNew South Wales. Government Printer,Sydney.

Costin, A.B., Gray, M., Totterdell, C.J. &Wimbush, D.J. 2000. KosciuszkoAlpine Flora. CSIRO/Collins Australia.

DEC 2005. Trial horse capture andremoval program in Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park – 2004/05 evaluationreport. Internal report of the NorthCoast Region, Parks & WildlifeDivision, Department of Environment& Conservation (NSW).

Dale, D. & Weaver, T. 1974. Tramplingeffects on vegetation of the trailcorridors of North Rocky Mountainforests. Journal of Applied Ecology11:767-772.

Dobbie, W. & Berman, D. 1990.Movement and home range of feralhorses in central Australia. Unpublishedinternal document, Conservation

33

Commission of the Northern Territory,Alice Springs.

Dobbie, W. & Berman, D. 1992. Controlof Brumbies in central Australia.Conservation Commission of theNorthern Territory, Alice Springs.

Dobbie, W.R., Berman, D. & Braysher,M.L. 1993. Managing Vertebrate Pests:Feral horses. Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.

DoC 1996. Kaimanawa Horse Plan. NewZealand Department of Conservation,Wellington. www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/002~Animal-Pests/Kaimanawa-Wild-Horses/ (last accessed 22 March06).

DoC 2004. Kaimanawa Wild HorsesWorking Plan 2004 – 2009. Departmentof Conservation, Wellington.www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/002~Animal-Pests/Kaimanawa-Wild-Horses/(last accessed 22 March 06).

Dyring, J. 1990. The impact of feral horses(Equus caballus) on sub-alpine andmontane environments in Australia.MSc thesis, University of Canberra.

Dyring, J. 1991. Management implicationsof the 1988-1990 Study: The impact offeral horses (Equus caballus) on sub-alpine and montane environments inAustralia. Applied Ecology ResearchGroup, University of Canberra.

Eberhardt, L.L. 1987. Populationprojections from simple models.Journal of Applied Ecology 24(1):103-118.

Eberhardt, L.L., Marjorowicz, A.K. &Wilcox, J.A. 1982. Apparent rates ofincrease for two feral horse herds.Journal of Wildlife Management 46(2):367-374.

English, A.W. 2000. Report on the cull offeral horses in Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park in October 2000. Areport presented to the NSW Ministerfor the Environment in Nov 2000www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/english_report.pdf (last accessed 22March 2006).

English, A.W. 2001a. A management planfor feral horses in Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park. Unpublished, releasedMarch 2001www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/english_report_2nd.pdf (last accessed 22March 2006).

English, A.W. 2001b. A report on themanagement of feral horses in nationalparks in New South Wales.Unpublished, released September 2001,available on the Internet at:www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/english_report_final.pdf (last accessed22 March 2006)

Fahey, E.J. 1984. The Settlement of GuyFawkes and Dorrigo. Revised edition.North Coast News Pty Ltd, CoffsHarbour, NSW.

Feist, J.D. & McCullough, C. 1976.Behaviour patterns and communicationin feral horses. Z. Tierpschol. 41:337-371.

Feist, J.D. 1971. Behaviour of feral horsesin the Pryor Mountain Wild HorseRange. MSc thesis, University ofMichigan.

Freeman, M. 2005. Density estimates offeral horses in Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park, NSW, using an aerialmark recapture method. Department ofEcosystem Management, University ofNew England, Armidale, NSW.

Gillieson, D., Davies, J. & Hardley, P.1987. Gurragorambla Creek horse trackmonitoring, Kosciusko National Park.Unpublished paper to the RoyalAustralian Institute of Parks andRecreation Conference, held inCanberra in October 1987.

Good, R. 1992. Kosciusko Heritage, NSWNational Parks and Wildlife Service,Hurstville.

HWP 2002. Report of the HeritageWorking Party on the Horses of theGuy Fawkes River National Park to theMinister for the Environment February2002. Volume 1:Final Report.

Jarman, P., Gross, C., Vernes, K. &Ballard, G. 2003. Research and

34

monitoring the impact of feral horses inthe GFRNP – an initial assessment andfeasibility study. University of NewEngland, Armidale, NSW.

Landsberg, J. 1999. Horse Riding inCanberra Nature Park. CSIROWildlife and Ecology, Canberra.

Liddle, M.J. & Chitty, L.D. 1981. Thenutrient budget of horse tracks on anEnglish lowland heath. Journal ofApplied Ecology 18:841-849.

Mayes, E. & Duncan, P. 1986. Temporalpatterns of feeding behaviour in free-ranging horses. Behaviour 97:105-129.

NPWS 2002. Draft Wild HorseManagement Plan for the alpine areaof Kosciuszko National Park. NSWNational Parks and Wildlife Service.

Parks Victoria / Australian Alps NationalParks, 1999. Australian Alps FeralHorse Impact Monitoring Project.

Parsonson, I. 1998. The Australian Ark: Ahistory of domesticated animals inAustralia (1788 – 1998). CSIROPublishing, Collingwood.

Pratt, R.M., Putman, R.J. Ekins, J.R. &Edwards, P.J. 1986. Use of habitat byfree-ranging cattle and ponies in theNew Forest, Southern England. Journalof Applied Ecology 23:539 –557.

Schott, C. 2002. Ecology of free-ranginghorse in northern Guy Fawkes RiverNational park – Research ProgressReport. Department of EcosystemManagement University of NewEngland, Armidale, NSW.

Schott, C. 2003. A report to the NSWNPWS on the ecology of free-ranginghorses in Guy fawkes River NationalPark. Department of EcosystemManagement, University of NewEngland, Armidale, NSW.

Soil Con. 1986. Above the Treeline – Howthe high country was rescued. SoilConservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Summer, R.M. 1986. Geomorphic impactsof horse traffic on montane landforms.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation41:126-128.

Taylor, U. 1995. Seed dispersal from feralhorse manure at Guy Fawkes RiverNational Park. Department ofEcosystem Management, University ofNew England, Armidale, NSW.

Thiele, K.R. & Prober, S.M. 1999.Assessment of Feral Horses (Equuscaballus) in the Australian Alps. AReport to the Australian Alps LiaisonCommittee.

Trudgill, S.T. 1977. Soil and VegetationSystems. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Wagoner D.M. 1977. The IllustratedVeterinary Encyclopaedia forHorsemen. Equine ResearchPublications, Texas.

Walters, B. & Hallam, M. 1992. FeralHorses in the Alps: The report of aworkshop, Howmans Gap, Victoria.Australian Nature ConservationAgency, Canberra.

Walters, B. 1996. Report on the feasibilityof assessing feral horse densities in theAustralian Alps Parks using a strip-transect method. Natural HeritageWorking Group of the Australian AlpsLiaison Committee.

Weaver, T. & Dale, D. 1978. Tramplingeffects of hikers, motorcycles andhorses in meadows and forests. Journalof Applied Ecology 15:451 – 457.

Whinam, J. & Comfort, M. 1996. Theimpact of commercial horse riding onsub-alpine environments at CradleMountain, Tasmania, Australia. Journalof Environmental Management 47:61-70.

Whinam, J., Cannell, E.J., Kirkpatrick, J.B.& Comfort, M. 1994. Studies on thepotential impact of recreational horseriding on some alpine environments ofthe Central Plateau, Tasmania. Journalof Environmental Management 40:103-117.

Wimbush, D.J. & Costin, A.B. 1979.Trends in vegetation at Kosciusko.Australian Journal of Botany27(6):741-871.

35

Wright, P. 1971. Memories of aBushwhacker. University of NewEngland, Armidale.

Ziegeler, D. 1990. A survey of weedinfestation within the TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area andperipheral areas. Tasmania:Department of Parks, Wildlife andHeritage.

36

Appendix

Table 2. NSW legislation and guidelines relevant to horse management National Parks andWildlife Act 1974

Establishes the National Parks and Wildlife Service Provides for establishment and management of conservation

reserves and the protection of native flora and fauna and Aboriginalrelics.

Requires the NPWS to carry out works considered necessary for themanagement or maintenance of NPWS lands. This includesmanagement of feral species.

Requires that a Plan of Management be prepared for each reserve.The NPWS is required to give effect to plans of management.

Threatened SpeciesConservation Act1995

Aims to conserve biodiversity by protecting and encouraging therecovery of threatened species, endangered populations andendangered ecological communities in NSW.

Wilderness Act 1987 This Act states that wilderness areas must be managed to protect orrestore their unmodified state in the absence of significant humaninterference and permit opportunities for appropriate self-reliantrecreation.

Environment Planningand Assessment Act1979

Regulates land use within NSW. Requires the NPWS (and other government agencies) to consider

the environmental impacts of management programs. The framework used to carry out this assessment is given by Part 5

of the Act. NPWS produces a review of environmental factors (REF)for all developments. Where a significant effect is likely, the Actrequires the preparation and exhibition of an environmental impactstatement (EIS). Where there is likely to be a significant effect onthreatened species, populations or ecological communities, a speciesimpact statement is required.

Prevention of Crueltyto Animals Act 1997

Prohibits cruelty to animals. Imposes obligations for persons in control of an animal to provide

(among other things) food, drink, shelter, and veterinary care for theanimal under their control. This is relevant where an animal’smovement is restricted, for example in a trap yard.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW(RSPCA) has been granted law enforcement powers under this Act.

Heritage Act 1977 Protects the State’s environmental heritage, which has significantvalue from an historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological,architectural, natural or aesthetic point of view.

Heritage items of state significance are listed on the State HeritageRegister. Any works, which may impact listed items, require theapproval of the Heritage Council.