Predator baiting risks for native wildlife

A recent article in The Conservation discussed the effectiveness and challenges of using poisoned bait in predator control. The article goes on to say poisoned baits are the primary method used by land managers to control foxes, feral cats and wild dogs. These baiting programs aim to reduce livestock losses, protect economic interests and alleviate pressure on endangered wildlife yet despite millions of baits being laid annually, the true effectiveness of baiting remains uncertain, with mixed evidence and potential unintended consequences.

Baiting can sometimes backfire. Research suggests poisoning wild dogs may lead to an increase in fox and feral cat populations, ultimately worsening the impact on native wildlife and, in some cases, baiting has even been linked to higher livestock attacks. These unintended outcomes highlight the need for better data on how these methods truly affects predator populations.

To address this knowledge gap is newly-researched and analysed data from 34 previous studies which assessed baiting effectiveness, covering more than 1400 individual predators. This comprehensive review shed new light on how well baiting works and how it can be optimised. Analysis found baiting programs generally cut predator survival rates in half (51.7 per cent) compared to unbaited areas (16 per cent). This effect was consistent regardless of whether baits were placed along roads and tracks or scattered more widely.

But predator populations can often rebound quickly after baiting. Under optimal conditions, fox and feral cat populations can double in a year, while wild dog populations can grow by 50 per cent. Additionally, predators from surrounding areas often repopulate baited zones, sometimes leading to little long-term change in population numbers yet, despite these challenges, prolonged and large-scale baiting programs have shown success. For example, sustained baiting efforts in New South Wales and South Australia have significantly reduced fox numbers, leading to population recoveries of threatened species including the yellow-footed rock wallaby.

It has long been believed feral cats are less likely to consume poisoned bait than foxes and wild dogs due to their hunting style and dietary preferences. However, this research suggested feral cats are just as susceptible to baiting, which is good news for conservation efforts aiming to reduce their numbers. Significant research has gone into designing bait specifically targeting these rogue felines such as the widely-known Eradicat, though analysis didn’t find strong evidence Eradicat was more effective than other poison, suggesting any bait is better than none when controlling cat populations.

There’s been ongoing discussion about whether increasing bait density or frequency is more effective, research indicating placing extra bait within a given area is more effective at reducing predator numbers than baiting more frequently. This is likely as some predators, particularly foxes, may develop bait aversion if they encounter sub-lethal doses or have negative experiences with bait. A single, intensive baiting effort is more likely to succeed as it reduces the number of potential survivors which could learn to avoid the bait in future.

Interestingly, while fresh baits have traditionally been thought to be more effective, analysis found bait type had little impact on predator survival rates. Improving baiting efficiency means fewer baits are needed to achieve the desired results which reduces costs, minimizes harm to non-target species  and enhances overall effectiveness of predator control.

While poison baiting remains a crucial tool for protecting livestock and wildlife, it’s essential to continually refine its use. By focusing on evidence-based strategies, managers can ensure baiting programs effectively reduce predator pressure on threatened species while minimizing unintended ecological consequences.

Thinking about this research it’s clear to me that if baiting is stopped the targeted species will return, the very argument used to discredit shooting as a pest-control method. Having regular shooting activities should produce the same outcome as regular baiting programs at no cost and with no non-target impacts. All tools need to be part of the toolbox so let’s not have anti-hunting/shooting ideology stand in the way of protecting our native wildlife.