Flying foxes (otherwise known as fruit bats) are very noticeable in urban areas because they often roost in colonies of thousands. Their presence engenders different responses within the community – some positive, some negative.
Flying foxes roost during the day then fly out at sunset to feed during the night. Some flying fox roosting areas are permanent camps whereas others may be occupied for a period then abandoned, perhaps to become reoccupied sometime later.
Flying foxes mainly eat pollen, nectar and fruit from native trees. Through their feeding, they play a significant role in maintaining Australia
Concerns about the presence of flying foxes in urban areas are constantly raised. The animals are criticised for many things including:
· eating backyard fruit
· defecating on washing, cars and roofs, and in swimming pools
· defoliating some trees and killing others
· their noise and smell
· being potentially dangerous, through their capacity to interfere with air traffic and to carry the Australian bat lyssavirus.
Hendra virus is also often cited as a key concern. Since it was first diagnosed in 1994, seven people have been confirmed to have been infected with the virus, four of whom have died as a result. Those infected with the virus suffer from an influenza-like illness and/or encephalitis. It is believed that many flying foxes carry the Hendra virus but it has little effect on them. It is thought that horses become infected with the virus when they eat food that is contaminated with infected flying fox urine, saliva or birthing products. In the first ten months of 2011, there were ten outbreaks of Hendra virus. Twenty-two horses died or were euthanased due to the presence of the virus – 12 in Queensland and ten in New South Wales Queensland
Legal protection for flying foxes in Queensland
Four species of flying fox are found across large areas of mainland Australia Queensland
The spectacled flying fox and the grey-headed flying fox are listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act. This means that people are prohibited from taking actions that are likely to have, or have, or will have, a significant impact on these flying foxes, without approval from the relevant Minister.
Flying foxes are ‘protected animals’ under the NC Act. It is an offence for a person to take (‘take’ includes, amongst other things, kill, trap or harm) a flying fox, unless the person is an authorised person or the taking is authorised under the NC Act.
Unless authorisation is granted under the NC Act, or the flying fox roost is in a protected area (this is dealt with elsewhere in the NC Act), section 88C of the NC Act makes it an offence to:
· destroy a flying fox roost
· drive away, or attempt to drive away, a flying fox from a flying fox roost
· disturb a flying fox in a flying fox roost.
A person may take action that would otherwise be illegal under section 88C if that person is issued with a damage mitigation permit under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 (Qld) (NCWM Regulation). (Note also that, according to advice received from the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), due to the operation of section 7 of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld), animal welfare obligations under that Act would not apply to a person who takes (or otherwise deals with) a flying fox in accordance with a damage mitigation permit.)
The NCWM Regulation (s 184) provides that a damage mitigation permit may be granted only for one or both of the following purposes:
· to prevent damage or loss caused, or likely to be caused, by a flying fox (s 184(1)(a)
· to prevent or minimise a threat, or potential threat, to human health and well-being caused by a flying fox (s 184(1)(b).
The NCWM Regulation (ss 185 & 186) provides that a damage mitigation permit to take a flying fox may only be issued if the chief executive (of the responsible agency) is satisfied that the proposed way of taking the flying fox is humane and not likely to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.
Management of flying foxes
Management of flying foxes obviously must occur within the legislative framework. According to advice from DAFF, currently, damage mitigation permits that allow the taking of flying foxes are not issued. This follows uncertainty as to whether any existing methods of taking flying foxes such as shooting or electrocution would satisfy the pre-requisite for issuing a damage mitigation permit, that "the proposed way of taking the [flying fox] is humane".
Dispersal and relocation
Relocation of the flying fox camp is often suggested when a colony establishes in an urban area. However, as noted by the then Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (now the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities):
… even with good planning and expert assistance, such efforts do not always achieve the desired result. Often the unpredictable nature of flying-fox behaviour means that the camp may move to a roost even less acceptable to the affected human community. Permanent relocation is also likely to depend on a continuing program of disturbance to deter flying-foxes from returning to the original site.
‘Nuisance’ colonies
According to advice from the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), the new LNP Queensland Government has indicated that it intends to overhaul the damage mitigation permit system in relation to moving bat colonies, such as decreasing the time taken to obtain an approval and extending the time that a permit lasts.
Fruit crop protection
According to advice from DEHP, while promoting non-harmful methods for protecting fruit crops from flying foxes, the LNP Queensland Government will permit the shooting of limited numbers of flying foxes as an absolute last resort where non-harmful deterrents have been tried and failed.
In situ
In some instances, it is most appropriate to manage flying foxes in situ. This could be through such means as netting of fruit trees, developing tourist opportunities, educating residents on ways to minimise the impact of flying foxes on them, and encouraging the flying foxes to roost in certain areas and discouraging them from roosting in others (such as through selective planting).
The future
The urban area can be hazardous for flying foxes - they may be electrocuted on powerlines, chased by cats or dogs, hit by a car or hurt on barbed wire fences - and their presence in urban areas does annoy and worry some residents. Nevertheless, with continuing habitat loss, it is becoming more likely that flying fox colonies will roost in or near urban areas.
Key documents
· Australia
· Queensland
· Westcott Mary, ‘Flying Foxes in Australia’s Urban Environment’, e-Research Brief 2010/12, April 2010.
Selected Media Articles
· Farmers to be able to Kill Flying Foxes’, Brisbanetimes.com.au, 15 May 2012
· Daniel Bateman, ‘Cull Policy Great for Charters Towers’, Townsville Bulletin, 15 May 2012
· Qld to Allow Culling of Native Bats’, The World Today, ABC Radio, 14 May 2012
· Kym Agius, ‘Worst Year Ever for Hendra Virus: Qld vet’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 October 2011
· Daniel Bateman, ‘Owners Batty Over Invaders’, Townsville Bulletin, 13 October 2011
· Andrea Schulz and Brad Cooper, ‘Hendra’s Deadly Fascination’, Queensland Country Life, 9 October 2011
General Distribution Research Team, Research and Information Service
