Assessing risks to non-target species during poison baiting programs for feral cats

Field assessment of the risk of feral cat baits to nontarget species in eastern Australia

Feral cats (Felis catus) pose a significant threat to wildlife, agriculture, and human health through predation, disease transmission, and competition with native animals. Controlling feral cats and their impacts, however, is challenging. New and emerging 1080-based feral cat baits have shown promising results in western and central Australia; however, the safety of these new baits for nontarget species in eastern Australia, where many native animals are more sensitive to compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) than their western conspecifics, has not been assessed. We investigated the uptake of 499 toxic Eradicat^® baits by nontarget animals across five different eastern Australian environs and the uptake of nontoxic Eradicat and Hisstory^® baits at an additional two sites. Using field-based observations of species eating or removing baits, we determined that 13 nontarget species (eight mammals, four birds, and one reptile) were at high risk of individual mortality, with individuals of 11 of those 13 species (seven mammals, four birds) observed consuming enough toxic Eradicat in a single visit to ingest a lethal dose of 1080. Feral cats (the target species) consumed only 3.1% of monitored baits, which was only 52% of the 31 baits they encountered. We recommend undertaking targeted population monitoring of species identified at high risk of individual mortality, to determine whether Eradicat baits present a population-level risk to these species. Our findings suggest that the small-sized Eradicat baits present a greater risk to nontarget species in eastern Australia than the larger traditional 1080-based meat baits used for the control of wild dogs and foxes. Our study highlights the importance of performing risk assessments for different bait types, even when the same toxin is used, and of performing site-specific nontarget risk assessments of new baits such as Eradicat to assist developing guidelines for their safe and effective use in different environs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:224-244. © 2021 State of Queensland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2021 SETAC.

Are canid pest ejectors an effective control tool for wild dogs in an arid rangeland environment?

Abstract Context Wild dogs are a significant pest species of livestock production and native wildlife in Australia. A suite of control tools is used to mitigate predation impacts. Baiting with sodium fluoroacetate is the most commonly used control tool in Australia; however, its effectiveness can be reduced by interference by non-target species, and in some contexts by microbial degradation of the toxin. Canid pest ejectors (CPEs) are a mechanical device with an attractant ‘lure head’ designed to eject a lethal toxin into the mouth of canids pulling on the lure head. A range of lure heads can be used to attract canids to pull, and trigger CPEs. Aims We aimed to determine whether uptake of CPEs by wild dogs in an arid rangeland environment could cause a decline in a wild dog population. We also aimed to determine whether there are particular lure heads that increase the rate of CPEs being triggered by wild dogs. Methods We deployed one hundred CPEs over four sessions of control across three properties in the southern rangelands of Western Australia from 2018 to 2020. Each session consisted of 2 months of CPE deployment with two different lure heads, totalling eight lure head types over the entire study. All CPEs were monitored using camera traps. Key results Wild dog density varied over the study period. In all four control sessions, a decrease in wild dog density was recorded (–46%, –5%, –13%, –38%). Wild dog activity events on camera and their interest in CPEs differed between sessions and lures (i.e. higher with scent-based lures). Non-target species did not interfere with CPEs significantly, despite a higher number of activity events by non-target species than wild dogs. Conclusions CPEs caused a reduction of 5–46% of wild dog density when deployed in the southern rangelands of Western Australia. Non-target interference was minimal when using CPEs for wild dog control. Implications Use of scent-based lures on felt lure heads is recommended for successful use of CPEs for wild dog control in arid rangeland environments. Future on-ground wild dog control should include CPEs as a complementary tool for the reduction of wild dog density.

Development of the Mata Hari Judas Queen (Felis catus)

Cats (Felis catus) are significant predators of mammals, birds, frogs and reptiles and are implicated in mammal species extinctions in Australia. Current controls fail to eradicate entire populations allowing survivors to re-establish. The use of the Mata Hari Judas (MHJ) technique, i.e., inducing prolonged oestrus using hormone implants, can enhance the eradication of remnant animals and would greatly improve conservation efforts. The hypotheses tested were that hormone implants could induce prolonged oestrus in queens (adult female cats), and that prolonging oestrus would result in sustained attractiveness to toms (adult male cats). Queens (n = 14) were randomly allocated to five treatments including a control and four treatments using hormone implants. Queens were observed daily; alone and during indirect contact with a tom for 30 consecutive days. There were significant increases (p < 0.001) in oestrus duration (19 to 27 days) for entire and ovariohysterectomised queens given Compudose100™ implants (1/8 or 1/4 implant). This study shows that it is possible to induce and prolong oestrus in queens using Compudose100™ implants where these queens are attractive to toms. The MHJ queen is a new tool with the potential to enhance the detection and thus the control of feral cats in remnant populations.

Understanding Australia’s national feral cat control effort

Abstract Context. Feral cats (Felis catus) pose a significant threat to Australia’s native species and feral cat control is, therefore, an important component of threatened species management and policy. Australia’s Threatened Species Strategy articulates defined targets for feral cat control. Yet, currently, little is known about who is engaged in feral cat control in Australia, what motivates them, and at what rate they are removing feral cats from the environment. Aims. We aim to document who is engaging in feral cat control in Australia, how many cats they remove and to estimate the number of feral cats killed in a single year. Furthermore, we seek to better understand attitudes towards feral cat control in Australia. Methods. We used a mixed methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. Feral cat control data were obtained from existing data repositories and via surveys targeting relevant organisations and individuals. A bounded national estimate of the number of feral cats killed was produced by combining estimates obtained from data repositories and surveys with modelled predictions for key audience segments. Attitudes towards feral cat control were assessed by exploring qualitative responses to relevant survey questions. Key results. We received information on feral cat control from three central repositories, 134 organisations and 2618 individuals, together removing more than 35000 feral cats per year. When including projections to national populations of key groups, the estimated number of feral cats removed from the environment in the 2017–2018 financial year was 316030 (95% CI: 297742–334318). Conclusions. Individuals and organisations make a significant, and largely unrecorded, contribution to feral cat control. Among individuals, there is a strong awareness of the impact of feral cats on Australia’s biodiversity. Opposition to feral cat control focussed largely on ethical concerns and doubts about its efficacy. Implications. There is significant interest in, and commitment to, feral cat control among some groups of Australian society, beyond the traditional conservation community. Yet more information is needed about control methods and their effectiveness to better understand how these efforts are linked to threatened species outcomes.

Are red-tailed phascogales (Phascogale calura) at risk from Eradicat® cat baits?

Abstract ContextFeral cats have benefitted from effective control of foxes in south-western Australia and, consequently, their impact on some threatened mammal species has increased. Control of feral cats in the region can be enhanced by use of the Eradicat® cat bait, but its impact on non-target animal populations requires investigation before widespread use. AimsThe aim of the present study was to determine through field trials whether consumption of Eradicat® baits by resident red-tailed phascogales, following a broadscale baiting operation to control feral cats, was sufficiently frequent to cause significant rates of mortality in wild populations of phascogales. MethodsNine radio-tagged red-tailed phascogales were monitored through an Eradicat® baiting event to determine their survival. Removal and consumption of toxic and non-toxic rhodamine B-labelled baits by a range of species were monitored with camera traps and by subsequent trapping of red-tailed phascogales and other mammals to sample whiskers for evidence of rhodamine uptake. Key resultsAlthough some phascogales showed interest in baits and sometimes moved them from the deposition site, all radio-tagged phascogales survived for at least 1 week after baiting, by which time very few or no baits remained. Examination of whiskers sampled from individuals exposed to rhodamine-labelled baits showed that consumption of non-toxic Eradicat® baits by phascogales was negligible; only one phascogale of 62 sampled showed any rhodamine banding. ConclusionsThe present study provided no evidence that red-tailed phascogales in the study region are at risk from an Eradicat® baiting episode in autumn. ImplicationsThe risk to red-tailed phascogale populations through the use of Eradicat® baiting to control cats in their habitat in the Great Southern region of Western Australia is likely to be low. Further research to elucidate any impact of repeated baiting on populations of this species at several locations is recommended.

Uptake of ‘Eradicat’ feral cat baits by non-target species on Kangaroo Island

Abstract ContextPredation by feral cats (Felis catus) threatens a range of vertebrate species across Australia, and cat-free islands increasingly act as safe havens for biodiversity. A feral cat eradication program has begun on Kangaroo Island (4405km2) in South Australia, and poison baiting is likely to be one of the main methods used. Aims Here, we trial a non-toxic version of a cat bait, ‘Eradicat’, on western Kangaroo Island, to examine its potential impact on non-target species. MethodsNon-toxic baits containing the biomarker Rhodamine B were deployed across four sites in early August and late November in 2018, with bait take and consumption assessed both by remote cameras and by the presence of Rhodamine B in mammalian whisker samples taken post-baiting. Key resultsCats encountered baits on very few occasions and took a bait on only one occasion in August (&lt;1% of 576 baits deployed). Non-target species accounted for over 99% of identifiable bait takes. In both seasons, &gt;60% of all baits laid was taken by either the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) or Australian raven (Corvus coronoides). In November, Rosenberg’s goanna (Varanus rosenbergi) and southern brown bandicoot (south-eastern subspecies; Isoodon obesulus obesulus), listed nationally as Endangered, also took baits (3% and 1% respectively). The Kangaroo Island dunnart (Sminthopsis fuliginosus aitkeni), listed nationally as endangered, approached a bait on only one occasion, but did not consume it. Evidence of bait consumption was visible in the whiskers of captured common brushtail possums (100% of post-baiting captured individuals in August, 80% in November), bush rats (59% in August and 50% in November), house mice (Mus musculus) (45% in November) and western pygmy-possums (Cercartetus concinnus) (33% in November). ConclusionsAlthough feral cat baiting has the potential to significantly benefit wildlife on Kangaroo Island, impacts on non-target species (particularly the bush rat and common brushtail possum) may be high. ImplicationsAlternative cat baits, such as those containing a toxin to which native species have a higher tolerance or that are less readily consumed by native wildlife, will be more appropriate.

On the right track: placement of camera traps on roads improves detection of predators and shows non-target impacts of feral cat baiting

Abstract ContextTo understand the ecological consequences of predator management, reliable and accurate methods are needed to survey and detect predators and the species with which they interact. Recently, poison baits have been developed specifically for lethal and broad-scale control of feral cats in Australia. However, the potential non-target effects of these baits on other predators, including native apex predators (dingoes), and, in turn, cascading effects on lower trophic levels (large herbivores), are poorly understood. AimsWe examined the effect that variation in camera trapping-survey design has on detecting dingoes, feral cats and macropodids, and how different habitat types affect species occurrences. We then examined how a feral cat poison baiting event influences the occupancy of these sympatric species. MethodsWe deployed 80 remotely triggered camera traps over the 2410-km2 Matuwa Indigenous Protected Area, in the semiarid rangelands of Western Australia, and used single-season site-occupancy models to calculate detection probabilities and occupancy for our target species before and after baiting. Key resultsCameras placed on roads were ~60 times more likely to detect dingoes and feral cats than were off-road cameras, whereas audio lures designed to attract feral cats had only a slight positive effect on detection for all target species. Habitat was a significant factor affecting the occupancy of dingoes and macropodids, but not feral cats, with both species being positively associated with open woodlands. Poison baiting to control feral cats did not significantly reduce their occupancy but did so for dingoes, whereas macropodid occupancy increased following baiting and reduced dingo occupancy. ConclusionsCamera traps on roads greatly increase the detection probabilities for predators, whereas audio lures appear to add little or no value to increasing detection for any of the species we targeted. Poison baiting of an invasive mesopredator appeared to negatively affect a non-target, native apex predator, and, in turn, may have resulted in increased activity of large herbivores. ImplicationsManagement and monitoring of predators must pay careful attention to survey design, and lethal control of invasive mesopredators should be approached cautiously so as to avoid potential unintended negative ecological consequences (apex-predator suppression and herbivore release).

Efficacy and welfare assessment of an encapsulated para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) formulation as a bait-delivered toxicant for feral cats (Felis catus)

Abstract ContextFeral cats are invasive predators of small and medium-sized fauna throughout Australia. The only broad-scale population-management technique for feral cats currently available in Australia is poison baiting. As poison baits for feral cats must be surface-laid, this can lead to the unintended exposure of non-target species consuming the baits. Encapsulation of a toxin within a robust, controlled-release pellet implanted within the meat lure (the combination of which is termed the Curiosity® bait) substantially reduces the potential risk to non-target species. Para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) has been shown to be an effective toxin to which cats are highly susceptible. AimsThe present study aimed to measure the efficacy of encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet on feral cats in a pen situation and to document the observed behaviours through the toxication process. MethodsPen trials with captive cats were undertaken to document efficacy of encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet and to assess the behaviours during toxicosis. These behaviours inform an assessment of the humaneness associated with the Curiosity bait using a published relative humaneness model. Key resultsThe trials demonstrated a 95% consumption of the toxic pellet and observed the pattern of behaviours exhibited during the intoxication process. There was a definitive delay in the onset of clinical signs and death followed at ~185min after the first definitive sign. The humaneness using the relative humaneness model was scored at ‘mild suffering’. ConclusionsThe encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet for feral cats is effective. The feral cats display a range of behaviours through the toxication process, and these have been interpreted as mild suffering under the relative humaneness model. ImplicationsThe documented efficacy and behaviours of encapsulating PAPP toxin in a controlled-release pellet provides knowledge of how the PAPP toxin works on feral cats, which may assist in decision-making processes for conservation land managers controlling feral cats and whether to incorporate the use of the Curiosity® bait into existing management techniques.

Evaluation of risks for two native mammal species from feral cat baiting in monsoonal tropical northern Australia

Context Feral cats are a significant threat to native wildlife and broad-scale control is required to reduce their impacts. Two toxic baits developed for feral cats, Curiosity® and Hisstory®, have been designed to reduce the risk of baiting to certain non-target species. These baits involve encapsulating the toxin within a hard-shelled delivery vehicle (HSDV) and placing it within a meat attractant. Native animals that chew their food more thoroughly are predicted to avoid poisoning by eating around the HSDV. This prediction has not been tested on wild native mammals in the monsoonal wet–dry tropics of the Northern Territory. Aim The aim of this research was to determine whether northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) and northern brown bandicoots (Isoodon macrourus) would take feral cat baits and ingest the HSDV under natural conditions on Groote Eylandt. Methods We hand-deployed 120 non-toxic baits with a HSDV that contained a biomarker, Rhodamine B, which stains animal whiskers when ingested. The species responsible for bait removal was determined with camera traps, and HSDV ingestion was measured by evaluating Rhodamine B in whiskers removed from animals trapped after baiting. Key results During field trials, 95% of baits were removed within 5 days. Using camera-trap images, we identified the species responsible for taking baits on 65 occasions. All 65 confirmed takes were by native species, with northern quolls taking 42 baits and northern brown bandicoots taking 17. No quolls and only one bandicoot ingested the HSDV. Conclusion The use of the HSDV reduces the potential for quolls and bandicoots to ingest a toxin when they consume feral cat baits. However, high bait uptake by non-target species may reduce the efficacy of cat baiting in some areas. Implications The present study highlighted that in the monsoonal wet–dry tropics, encapsulated baits are likely to minimise poisoning risk to certain native species that would otherwise eat meat baits. However, further research may be required to evaluate risks to other non-target species. Given the threat to biodiversity from feral cats, we see it as critical to continue testing Hisstory® and Curiosity® in live-baiting trials in northern Australia.

Assessment of non-target risks from sodium fluoroacetate (1080), para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) and sodium cyanide (NaCN) for fox-incursion response in Tasmania

Context Access to effective toxicants and delivery systems that target red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are likely to be required as part of a management strategy in the event of future red fox incursions into Tasmania. Potential toxicants include sodium fluoroacetate (1080), para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP) and sodium cyanide (NaCN). Aims To assess the risk of three toxicants (1080, PAPP and NaCN) to non-target native Tasmanian mammals and birds and domestic dogs and cats. Methods We identified native Tasmanian mammal and bird species that may potentially consume fox baits, by reviewing the ecological traits of native species and by monitoring 180 buried bait stations with video cameras. We also assess the potential risk to non-target species of dying from a single standard dose of each of the three toxicants. Key results Seven native mammal and 20 native bird species have the potential to consume fox bait. All vertebrates would be susceptible to a single dose of NaCN. Consumption of a single fox bait containing 3 mg 1080 may be lethal to five native mammals, three native birds, and the domestic cat (Felis catus) and dog (Canis familiaris). Consumption of a single fox bait containing 226 mg PAPP may be lethal to the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and the domestic cat and dog. Delivery of toxicants via a mechanical ejector would reduce non-target exposure to toxicants. Conclusions It appears that PAPP would provide a useful alternative to 1080 for use in lethal fox control in Tasmania, either in the event of an incursion or in the eradication of an established population. NaCN is not suitable for broadscale use in Tasmania because of the high susceptibility of all vertebrates to this toxicant. Nevertheless, NaCN would be useful in highly restricted areas in the event of an incursion where carcass recovery is important. The use of a mechanical ejector to target delivery of toxicants to red foxes would reduce non-target risks. Implications Our results clarify theoretical non-target risks from any future fox-poisoning programs in Tasmania and highlight the need for further research on the susceptibility of native species to PAPP as a potential alternative to 1080.

Toxic Trojans: can feral cat predation be mitigated by making their prey poisonous?

Predation, along with competition and disease transmission from feral domestic cats (Felis catus), poses the key threat to many in situ and reintroduced populations of threatened species globally. Feral cats are more challenging to control than pest canids because cats seldom consume poison baits or enter baited traps when live prey are readily available. Novel strategies for sustainably protecting threatened wildlife from feral cats are urgently required. Emerging evidence suggests that once they have successfully killed a challenging species, individual feral cats can systematically eradicate threatened prey populations. Here we propose to exploit this selective predation through three targeted strategies to improve the efficacy of feral cat control. Toxic collars and toxic implants, fitted or inserted during monitoring or reintroduction programs for threatened species, could poison the offending cat before it can effect multiple kills of the target species. A third strategy is informed by evidence that consumption of prey species that are relatively tolerant to natural plant toxins, can be lethal to more sensitive cats. Within key habitats of wildlife species susceptible to cat predation, we advocate increasing the accessibility of these toxins in the food chain, provided negative risks can be mediated. Deliberate poisoning using live and unaffected ‘toxic Trojan prey’ enables ethical feral cat management that takes advantage of cats’ physiological and behavioural predilection for hunting live prey while minimising risks to many non-targets, compared with conventional baiting.