Do you have any suggestions to improve self regulation of the trial Wildlife Protection Areas?

over 6 years ago
CLOSED: This map consultation has concluded

A review of the implementation of WPAs in other LGA’s has indicated that self-regulation is the preferred compliance approach due to:

• the high cost associated with proactive enforcement

• the limited ability to apply a penalty to owners of companion animals, in particular cats, in breach of the local order.

Council will adopt a similar model relying primarily on education and voluntary compliance.


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

This consultation has concluded.

  • jen over 8 years ago
    Currently Sassafrass Gully has a large number of feral cats that have been breeding in the area for a number of years. These cats have been supported by people feeding them in the car park area. Without an active trapping program to remove these cats from the area any wildlife protection action is merely window dressing. What does the actions of one or two domestic cats owners matter when the area has freak cats that have been wild for multiple generations
    Hide reply (1)
    • kwaka over 8 years ago
      Feral cats would not go near people to be fed. Are you saying people are littering

      Which car park are you talking about? The south side car park in Springwood above Picnic Glen entrance has generations of homeless cats and kittens living in the drainage grids. Have noted food left there for them.
      Maybe Picnic Glen Reserve would be a better place for the trial WPA.

      As for the small car parking area at the start of Wiggins Track, near Sassafrass Gully, I have never seen any cats there.
      But plenty of dogs being walked.

      Further into the area marked for protection I have spotted wallaby, snake and lizard tracks over the years.
      As well as the actual animals.

      Other tracks have been human footprints, bmx bikes and the occassional trail bike.

      How will this protection area listing affect the homeless fellow that has been camped in there for years?
  • Norman over 8 years ago
    It may be worth a periodic trapping program for cats around the proposed areas. Or perhaps only around one of the areas as a test case for comparison ?
  • kulana over 8 years ago
    I understand Councils' concern with high costs of 'enforcing/managing' these areas, and the subsequent increased costs of holding (and euthanising) an increased number of trapped cats at the RSPCA pound.

    No doubt informal 'Neighbourhood Watch' type of groups will initially evolve to take an local interest in these areas thereby assisting council with their upkeep. I would hope these groups become formalised to prevent any inhumane behaviour towards the trapped animals.

    I watch with interest as these pilot areas are established.
  • anne over 8 years ago
    I am writing to strongly support the introduction of both registration and confinement of cats. I have seen personally the damage to wildlife done by cats in my local area.
    we have the privlege of living in a national park,surely we have some obligation to maintain a healthy environment for the wildlife that share and enrich our environment.
    Regulation and enforcement are the only true means of successfully limiting the impact of cats on our native wildlife.
  • bush bird over 8 years ago
    Self regulation is code for 'do nothing', whilst acknowledging that BMCC is short of $.
    Warringah and Willoughby Councils have active fox and cat control programmes and Willoughby claims this has resulted in an increase in the presence of wildlife in its WPA's.

    Self-regulation is not good enough.
    What about all the stray/feral/NOT micro-chipped cats roaming and predating?
    I have heard a NPWS Ranger talk about how easy it was to trap feral cats.
    BMCC in partnership with NPWS must undertake fox baiting and cat trapping, unpalatable as it may be to some people OR offer trap hire to residnets.
    Cats in a WPA are in breach of the legislation and councils are authorised under legislation to catch and handle cats.
    Dog owners in the mtns are notorious for letting their dogs run in the bush, including the Nat Parks. Ranger presence and some fines is seriously needed.

    Unless predator controls and proactive enforcement are implemented it is probable that the trial will be called a failure because wildlife numbers/species do not increase. With predator controls in place a 2year trail may be adequate.

    Is BMCC serious about protecting wildlife and implementing WPA's? or dodging the issue?
  • mumbles over 8 years ago
    As I fully agree with the concept of Wildlife Protection Ares, I think it is only fair for Council to provide off leash areas for Dog owners.