Protected Species vs Pest Animal

Why has the Victorian government persisted with classing deer as “protected” ?

Commonwealth and state governments recognise that deer are a key threatening process in
the landscape; they are having a major financial impact on farming communities, are
threatening biodiversity and are an increasing danger on our roads. Deer are not native.

Victoria is the last remaining mainland state to keep listed deer as a protected species. All the others have declared them as a pest species, including now NSW, who changed their status in 2019. In Victoria, there is no official stated justification for their protected status. However, following discussions between government officials and the Cardinia Deer Management Coalition (CDMC), the following reasons seem to prevail:

1. Changing the status to pest animal will reduce the government’s ability to regulate the
manner in which deer are hunted. For example, hunters may not use the appropriate
calibre of weapon or weight of bullet, resulting in the inhumane killing or injury of deer.
They are also concerned about the use of spotlighting in relation to the hunter’s code of
a “fair chase.”

2. Changing the status to feral animal may cause a financial and management burden to
farmers. This is because landowners would then be compelled to control deer on their
property. It would also further compel government agencies to control deer on public
land.

3. Unregulated hunting may encourage “rogue” hunters to target deer, especially in the
state parks and private land. This could become a public safety issue as less skilled and
less ethical hunters become more active.

4. Changing the status to pest species is not required anymore because of recent changes
to legislation removing the protected status of deer on private land if deer are causing
harm or damage. This means landowners can control deer (except for hog deer) on
private land without a permit.

The CDMC are strongly of the view that deer should be declared as a pest species in Victoria, as they already are in Queensland, South Australia, West Australia, The ACT and the Northern Territory. This would bring them into line with the other states and reflect in words and law the recognised seriousness of the problem of deer in the Australian landscape.

In giving our reasons, we will address each of the four topics listed above:

1. "Reducing the government’s ability to regulate the manner in which deer are hunted."

• “Fair chase” does not apply when deer are controlled (private land), only when they are hunted (public land.) There are two ethical standards being applied depending on which side of the fence a deer is standing. This regulation specifies the calibre of rifle, type of bullet or use of spotlights when hunting deer.
• The use of the term “fair chase” only has meaning to the hunter, not to the deer. The most important concern should be that hunting and controlling deer should be humane across all land tenures. Regulations can and should be changed to reflect this.
• Stringent laws should be in place for the humane treatment of all animals, including when controlling them, even the ones we don’t like. Deer are not special in this sense; control of all pest species should be humane, whether they are foxes or cats, camels or cane toads.

        
2.  "A financial and management burden to farmers …", "compelled to control deer … "

• Firstly, this is not just about farmers, but about owners of all the land where deer can feed and take refuge, both private and public.
• Deer are already a financial burden to farmers. With protected status, your neighbour could be feeding and nurturing on their land the same deer that are jumping the fence and destroying your crops/vineyard/orchard. Legally. It is not fair that those suffering the most loss should shoulder the burden of controlling the deer that are being nourished across the whole landscape, including public lands.
• Farmers already have pest animals on their farms which they are already required by law to control, such as rabbits, foxes, pigs and goats. These animals have been declared as pests for the same reasons deer are of concern.
• It is right and necessary to require control of an introduced feral species which threaten our natural heritage and livelihoods.
• Government agencies should also be compelled to control deer as a pest species, especially in areas where they are threat to farm incomes. Where public areas are to be set aside for recreational hunting, the effects of this on surrounding landowners need to be assessed and mitigated where necessary, as a government expense.

3. "Unregulated hunting may encourage illegal hunters …"

• Illegal and “rogue” hunting has always been a problem and always will be a problem. Farmers and landowners already experience on a regular basis the sight of a deer shot near the roadside on their land with its head cut off.
• The best way to reduce this with respect to deer hunting is -
  • Firstly to encourage and resource the stringent policing of the current regulations and enact and apply proper penalty legislation.
  • Secondly ensuring proper hunter education is available.
  • And thirdly, to reduce deer numbers, especially in urban, periurban and farming areas.

4. "Changing the status to pest species is not required anymore because of recent changes
to legislation."

• We acknowledge recent changes of legislation make it easier for landowners to control deer on their own property, however …
• An individual landowner cannot control a problem that is not limited to their own property. Our neighbours must all (private and public) play their part.
• Calling a feral species a pest animal sends a strong message to the whole community: these animals are not benevolent bystanders, they are destroying our environment, affecting livelihoods and community amenity and are a danger on our roads. The message must get out and it is the government’s role to lead this.
• All other mainland states have grappled with this issue and declared deer a pest species
• It is fundamentally wrong that a damaging invasive species should not be recognised as such in law.