This week DEECA advised SSAA Victoria that it would commence contractor-led deer control activities across selected state forests in the Grampians region from 1 June under the Government’s Protecting Biodiversity program.
The advice arrived on…1 June.
To be clear at the outset – SSAA Victoria supports evidence-based deer control where deer are causing real and measurable environmental harm. We say that consistently and we back it up in practice. Through our Conservation and Pest Management (CPM) program, our members work with Parks Victoria and others to deliver control outcomes for pest and problem animals across Victoria.
This is not an argument against deer control.
It is an argument for transparency, proportionality and credibility.
DEECA’s notice advised that “monitoring has identified high deer populations” and that the control program aims to protect threatened species and ecological values, including the Mt Cole grevillea and habitat used by the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo.
Those are legitimate objectives.
But if we are serious about evidence-based environmental management, then statements like “monitoring has identified high deer populations” should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.
- What monitoring?
- How were populations measured?
- What constitutes “high”?
- Compared to what baseline?
- What specific impacts have been recorded?
- What reduction target is being sought?
- How will success be measured afterwards?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are the minimum questions that should accompany any modern wildlife management program.
Sambar deer have existed in places like Mt Cole for over a century. If there has been a material shift in population or environmental impact sufficient to justify intervention, then demonstrating that should not be difficult.
Equally, if there are State Forest areas open to recreational hunting where deer numbers are genuinely elevated, why is the first public conversation not about increasing and directing recreational harvest?
Victoria already has tens of thousands of licensed game hunters in the field. Recreational hunters harvest large numbers of deer each year and provide effort at no cost to taxpayers. There will absolutely be circumstances where targeted contractor programs are the right tool – particularly for sensitive sites, difficult access, or where outcomes need to be tightly controlled – but those decisions should be explained.
The risk otherwise is not opposition to control.
The risk is cynicism.
Conservation language loses force when broad statements about “protecting biodiversity” become detached from publicly articulated objectives, measurable outcomes and transparent reporting.
Hunters understand management. Most support management.
But management requires more than announcing that control has commenced and advising stakeholders on the day it starts.
Government agencies should not be afraid to show their workings.
If the environmental case is strong, transparency strengthens social licence.
If the outcomes are measurable, publish them.
And if recreational hunting can contribute before taxpayer-funded intervention is deployed, that option should at least be openly considered.
SSAA Victoria has asked DEECA for further detail on the evidence base, objectives and monitoring framework for this program and looks forward to including that information in future communications.
Good wildlife management is not achieved by avoiding scrutiny.
It is achieved by welcoming it.
