Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats

This page is about an older Commonwealth threat abatement plan. The Federal Register entry states that the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats was approved on 2 July 1999 and was later replaced by the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Unmanaged Goats 2008 with effect from 1 October 2008.

That means businesses should not read this older plan as if it is still the current operative framework. Its value now is mainly historical and practical. It helps explain the national policy approach to unmanaged goats, the distinction between managed and unmanaged animals, and the kinds of control, monitoring and coordination measures that informed the later plan.

The register material also shows a compilation dated 1 October 2008. That does not change the practical point for business readers. The same register entry says the older instrument was replaced from that date. So if you are making decisions about land management, contracts, funding conditions or environmental obligations now, you should treat this page as background only and check the later 2008 unmanaged goats plan and any other current requirements that apply to your situation.

The plan established a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s response to the impacts of unmanaged goats on biodiversity. The text says it identified the research, management and other actions needed to support the long-term survival of native species and ecological communities affected by competition and land degradation caused by unmanaged goats.

Within the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 context described in the text, threat abatement plans were part of a broader national approach. The text explains that implementation involved partnerships and co-investments with government agencies, industry and other stakeholders, and that improved abatement methods needed to be shared with potential users.

The plan also makes clear that invasive species management is not just about technical control methods. It says social and economic factors matter too, including support for private landholders and leaseholders managing invasive species on their land for biodiversity conservation and primary production. For businesses, that is an important point. The framework was not written as a simple direct command to every landholder. Instead, it was designed to shape coordinated action, investment priorities, regional planning and on-ground control programs.

The text also places unmanaged goat control within a wider pest animal strategy setting. It says regional natural resource management plans and site-based plans provide the best scale and context for operational plans because they allow primary production and environmental considerations to be addressed together. That helps explain why the practical effect on a business may appear through regional programs, project conditions or coordinated land management rather than through a single stand-alone notice.

The plan is most relevant to people and organisations connected to land where goats are present, may spread, or may affect biodiversity values. The text says goats are found across approximately 2 million square kilometres of Australia and are present in all states, the Australian Capital Territory and some offshore islands, including islands that are part of the Northern Territory. It also says unmanaged goats are not found on the mainland of the Northern Territory.

The intensity of goat management varies widely. In the agricultural zone, goats are typically more intensively farmed and tightly constrained by high fencing. In the pastoral zone, goats on leasehold or private property may be under varying levels of management. That matters because the plan focuses on biodiversity impacts from goats where they are not actively managed, while allowing for the responsible farming of goats.

So, businesses most likely to be affected include pastoral operators, leaseholders, landholders in priority biodiversity areas, goat producers who need to show that their herds are genuinely managed, and contractors or organisations involved in pest control and environmental management. Businesses usually outside the main focus are those with no connection to rural land, goat populations or biodiversity management. Even for rural businesses, the practical question is not simply whether goats are present. It is whether the goats are unmanaged and whether they are affecting biodiversity values in a way that attracts control, monitoring or regional planning attention.

The distinction between managed and unmanaged goats is central to the plan. The text says the focus is to abate the impacts of goats where they are not actively managed, while allowing for the responsible farming of goats.

Under the plan, unmanaged goats are goats that are free-living and not subject to livestock husbandry, although they may still be considered owned in the sense that access for harvesting or control is determined by the owner or occupier of the land. Managed goats are described as goats held under some combination of animal husbandry, including being owned, identified, restrained, managed for population structure and density, and receiving welfare.

The text also recognises that some goats may have one or more characteristics of managed goats but in other respects be indistinguishable from unmanaged animals with no husbandry. For business owners, that means labels alone are not enough. Practical husbandry systems matter. Fencing, identification, restraint, active population management and welfare arrangements may all be relevant when deciding whether goats are being treated as managed livestock or are effectively part of an unmanaged population.

This distinction is especially important in broadacre grazing areas where managed and unmanaged herds may be difficult to differentiate. In those settings, the plan says goat impacts need to be considered as part of the overall grazing pressure from introduced livestock and native species. That is a practical warning for businesses not to rely on a narrow or purely descriptive view of their herd arrangements.

The stated goal of the plan was to minimise the impact of unmanaged goat competition and land degradation on biodiversity in Australia and its territories by protecting affected native species and ecological communities, and preventing further species and ecological communities from becoming threatened.

To achieve that goal, the plan set five main objectives. These were to prevent unmanaged goats occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate them from high-conservation-value islands, promote the maintenance and recovery of affected native species and ecological communities, improve knowledge and understanding of unmanaged goat impacts and interactions, improve the effectiveness, target specificity and humaneness of control options, and increase stakeholder awareness of the plan and the need to control unmanaged goats.

For businesses, the practical trigger points are not framed as a standard licence threshold or registration event. Instead, they arise from location, land condition, biodiversity risk and management context. A business is more likely to be affected if it operates in or near a high-conservation-value island or isolated mainland area, if unmanaged goats are present in a priority area for native species protection, if reinvasion from neighbouring land is a risk, or if the business is involved in regional control or monitoring programs.

This older plan did not operate like a simple direct compliance code for every business. Even so, the text sets out practical expectations that could shape how governments, landholders, contractors and regional bodies approached unmanaged goat control.

First, the plan emphasised preventing unmanaged goats from occupying new areas and eradicating them from high-conservation-value islands where feasible. That involved identifying high-value island and isolated mainland areas, assessing conservation value and risk, developing management plans for prevention, monitoring, containment and eradication, and implementing those plans.

Second, the plan focused on identifying priority areas for investment in goat control based on the significance of affected native species or ecological communities, the degree of threat posed by unmanaged goats relative to other threats, the cost-effectiveness of maintaining goat populations below a damage threshold, and the feasibility of effective remedial action. Once priority areas were identified, regional control programs were to be conducted and monitored.

Third, the plan said it was important to promote goat control not only in priority areas but also in adjacent areas to prevent reinvasion. It specifically referred to applying incentives to promote and maintain on-ground control on private and leasehold lands within or adjacent to priority sites. For businesses, that means the practical impact may arise through funding conditions, regional programs, neighbour coordination or land management expectations rather than a single direct statutory notice.

Fourth, the plan placed strong emphasis on monitoring. It referred to pre and post-control monitoring of unmanaged goat populations and key native species, and to the development of simple and cost-effective methods for assessing impacts relative to other sources of pressure such as rabbits and domestic livestock. Businesses involved in control work or environmental projects should note that success was not just about reducing goat numbers. It was also about measuring biodiversity outcomes.

Fifth, the plan required integrated thinking. It said control programs should not be conducted in isolation from other management activities and highlighted interactions between unmanaged goats, livestock, rabbits, macropods and wild dogs. It also referred to unintended effects such as weed outbreaks or increases in other grazers if goat control is not integrated with broader land management.

Because this framework operated through coordination, planning and implementation across multiple stakeholders, the practical effect on a business may appear in documents other than the plan itself. The text says regional natural resource management plans and site-based plans provide the best scale and context for developing operational plans to control invasive species. It also says implementation depends on cooperation between landholders, community groups, local government, state and territory agencies, and the Australian Government.

That means a business should review the documents and conduct that show how goats are actually being managed and what current programs require. For a goat producer, that may include fencing, identification, restraint, welfare and population management records that support the position that goats are managed livestock. For a landholder or contractor, it may include regional control plans, biodiversity project documents, grant conditions, lease obligations, monitoring protocols and neighbour arrangements.

The text also notes that the national coordination of pest animal control activities occurred within a broader strategy context. So even where this older plan is only historical, businesses should expect current obligations and expectations to sit within broader pest animal, biodiversity and land management frameworks.

The plan says control of unmanaged goats relies on a range of approaches. The main techniques suitable for broadscale control are mustering, trapping and aerial shooting, with suitability depending on terrain and conditions. It also says eradication from offshore islands, or from similarly isolated mainland areas, is feasible and has been achieved by various methods.

But the text goes further than listing control tools. It stresses that best practice management in blended situations, or where unmanaged goats alone are present, should involve reducing the threat to native species affected by competition and land degradation from goats. It also says reliable monitoring techniques need to be developed for unmanaged goats and that control should be better integrated with control of other vertebrate pests.

For businesses, the practical message is that a control program should be designed around outcomes, not just activity. A contractor or land manager may need to show not only that goats were removed or reduced, but also that the work was targeted, monitored and integrated with broader land management. If a property has multiple grazing pressures, fencing issues, weed risks or interactions with wild dogs and other species, those factors should be considered before assuming a goat-only response is enough.

The register states that this plan was approved on 2 July 1999. The compilation information says it shows the text of the law as amended and in force on 1 October 2008. The register also states that the instrument was replaced by the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Unmanaged Goats 2008 with effect from 1 October 2008.

For business readers, the practical conclusion is straightforward. This older feral goats plan should be treated as historical context. Before relying on any statement about current obligations, programs or operational expectations, check the later 2008 unmanaged goats plan and any current state, territory, regional or contractual requirements that apply to your situation.