2015-10-13 Planning & Organisation Agenda Attachment 1 to Item 6 Draft Flying Fox Management Plan

    draft
out), and if required the helicopter can divert and an ambulance used for patient transfer. Pilots
should be aware of large influxes, or if flying-foxes are roosting in close proximity to the flight
path, as disturbance causing flying-foxes to take flight will pose a risk at any time of the day.


4.2            Dispersal
There are a range of potential risks that are greatly increased with active dispersal (compared
with in-situ management as above). These include:

       ·     impact on animal welfare and flying-fox conservation
       ·     increased aircraft strike risk associated with changed flying-fox movement patterns
       ·     splintering the roost into other locations that are equally or more problematic
       ·     shifting the issue to another area
       ·     impact on habitat value
       ·     effects on the flying-fox population, including disease status and associated public
             health risk
       ·     impacts to nearby residents associated with ongoing dispersal attempts
       ·     excessive initial and/or ongoing resource and financial investment
       ·     negative public perception and backlash
       ·     unsuccessful management requiring multiple attempts, which may exacerbate all of
             the above.

Successful dispersals generally require either:

       1. substantial vegetation removal/modification that is likely to incur significant long-term
          ecological impacts on the roost area, and/or
       2. sustained disturbance at the site and intensive monitoring, with subsequent
          additional and ideally simultaneous dispersal of splinter roosts that may form at
          undesirable locations.

Both of the above dispersal approaches are costly, require ongoing commitment and
maintenance, are often not entirely successful, and rarely result in desirable outcomes for all
stakeholders. For example, Roberts and Eby (2013) summarised 17 known flying-fox
dispersals between 1990 and 2013, and made the following conclusions:

       1. In all cases, dispersed animals did not abandon the local area 7.
       2. In 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in a local
          area.
       3. Dispersed animals did not move far (in approx. 63% of cases the animals only moved
          <600m from the original site, contingent on the distribution of available vegetation). In
          85% of cases, new camps were established nearby.


7
    Local area is defined as the area within a 20 km radius of the original site = typical feeding area of a flying-fox.

Flying-fox roost management options                                                                            ecosure.com.au | 17