Looking for something?Close
The aim of this code of practice is to provide information and guidance to vertebrate pest managers responsible for the control of rabbits. Control programs aim to reduce the negative impacts of rabbits using the most humane, target specific, cost effective and efficacious techniques available.
This code of practice (COP) is adopted nationally. Jurisdictions can apply more stringent requirements as long as they retain the principles set out in these codes. The COP should only be used subject to the applicable legal requirements (including OH&S) operating in the relevant jurisdiction.
There is an expectation that animal suffering associated with pest management be minimised. The most humane methods that will achieve the control program’s aims must be used. Consideration of animal suffering should occur regardless of the status given to a particular pest species or the extent of the damage or impact created by that pest. While the ecological and economic rationales for the control of pests such as the rabbit are frequently documented, little attention has been paid to the development of an ethical framework in which these pests are controlled. An ethical approach to pest control includes the recognition of and attention to the welfare of all animals affected directly or indirectly by control programs. Ensuring such approaches are uniformly applied as management practices requires the development of agreed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for pest animal control. These SOPs are written in a way that describes the procedures involved for each control technique as applied to each of the major pest animal species. While SOPs address animal welfare issues applicable to each technique, a Code of Practice (COP) is also required that bring together these procedures into a document which also specifies humane control strategies and their implementation. COPs encompass all aspects of controlling a pest animal species. This includes aspects of best practice principles, relevant biological information, guidance on choosing the most humane and appropriate control technique and how to most effectively implement management programs.
This code is based on current knowledge and experience in the area of rabbit control and will be revised as required to take into account advances in knowledge and development of new control techniques and strategies.
Pest animal – native or introduced, wild or feral, non-human species of animal that is currently troublesome locally, or over a wide area, to one or more persons, either by being a health hazard, a general nuisance, or by destroying food, fibre, or natural resources (Koehler, 1964).
Welfare – an animals’ state as regards its attempts to cope with its environment (Broom, 1999). Welfare includes the extent of any difficulty in coping or any failure to cope; it is a characteristic of an individual at a particular time and can range from very good to very poor. Pain and suffering are important aspects of poor welfare, whereas good welfare is present when the nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural, and mental needs of animals are met. When welfare is good, suffering is absent (Littin et al., 2004).
Humane Vertebrate Pest Animal Control – the development and selection of feasible control programs and techniques that avoid or minimise pain, suffering and distress to target and non-target animals (RSPCA, 2004).
Best Practice Management – a structured and consistent approach to the management of vertebrate pests in an attempt to achieve enduring and cost-effective outcomes. ‘Best practice’ is defined as the best practice agreed at a particular time following consideration of scientific information and accumulated experience (Braysher, 1993).
From an animal welfare perspective, it is highly desirable that pest control programs affect a minimum number of individuals and that effort is sustained so that pest densities always remain at a low level. Over the last decade, the approach to managing pest animals has changed. Rather than focussing on killing as many pests as possible, it is now realised that like most other aspects of agriculture or nature conservation, pest management needs to be carefully planned and coordinated. Pest animal control is just one aspect of an integrated approach to the management of production and natural resource systems. Most pests are highly mobile and can readily replace those that are killed in control programs. Unless actions are well planned and coordinated across an area, individual control programs are unlikely to have a lasting effect. When planning pest management, there are some important steps that should be considered (after Braysher & Saunders, 2002).
Implementing effective and humane pest control programs requires a basic understanding of the ecology and biology of the targeted pest species and in some cases those species affected directly (non-targets) or indirectly (prey species) by a control program. It is also essential to understand the impact created by the pest i.e. what is the problem? Managers should take the time to make themselves aware of such information by reading the recommended texts at the end of this code of practice. A brief summary follows. This information is extracted from the publication Managing Vertebrate Pests: Rabbits by Williams et al. (1995).
Rabbits have a high reproductive potential. Adult females produce 15–40 young a year, but only 1–10% survive past the first year. Generally speaking, spring is the high point of the reproductive cycle and autumn the low with breeding triggered when pastures green up after rain. The last litters are conceived as soil moisture becomes limiting and pastures mature and dry out. At birth the young weigh 35 g each and by the time they first emerge from the warren at 21 days they have increased their body weight by 600% to 210 g each.
The key to the success of the rabbit in Australia is the warren, which provides protection from weather and predators and enables rabbits to inhabit semi‑arid and arid country. Contrary to popular belief, rabbits do not dig new warrens readily. Although they usually live in warrens, rabbits readily live above the ground whenever there is adequate shelter. In some areas a high proportion of adult rabbits live mostly above ground. Soils are a major factor influencing local and regional distribution. Soils with a high clay (greater than 40%) content or high silt plus clay content (greater than 50%) are not suitable for warrens as these soils become waterlogged in winter and are too hard to dig in summer. The absence of warrens on cracking clays is due partly to waterlogging but it is also due to burrows collapsing as the soil shrinks and swells with changing water content. Warrens are larger and more dense in the deeper soils on lower slopes and flats.
The optimum habitat for rabbits in Australia is the intermediate rainfall zone, where parasite numbers are low, droughts are uncommon and breeding seasons relatively long. Rabbits occasionally do well in Australia’s hot arid zones even though physiologically they are not well adapted to arid conditions. When some green vegetation is available, they readily find the high protein, high water content diet they need to survive and reproduce.
Although rabbit densities are rarely known precisely, low, medium and high rabbit densities approximate, less than 1.0, 1–4 and more than four rabbits per hectare respectively. Spotlight transect counts of low, medium and high rabbit densities in open country with low pasture are approximately less than 5, 6–30 and more than 30 rabbits per spotlight kilometre respectively.
Survivors of a population crash tend to be adult rabbits. After the breaking of a drought, rabbit populations are held at low densities for several years by a combination of native predators, foxes and feral cats. It is not until fox and feral cat numbers decline some time after the crash of the rabbit population, and good seasons return, that rabbit numbers build up again.
Adult rabbits live as territorial monogamous pairs, or in social groups of up to ten individuals with separate hierarchies for males and females. Males fight to defend females and females fight to defend access to breeding sites within warrens. As many more young males than females disperse, the warren is a heritage passed on by adult females to female offspring. Resident rabbits rarely move more than 200 metres from their warren. Major causes of death are drought, parasites, rabbit management programs, myxomatosis, rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD), and predators such as dingoes, birds of prey, goannas, foxes and feral cats.
Before the introduction of myxomatosis and then RHD, rabbits greatly reduced stock productivity and caused profound direct and indirect damage to soils and to native plants and animals. While these biological controls have greatly reduced rabbit densities nationally, damage is still significant. Rabbit damage is worst in the rangelands, where a whole suite of plant species and their dependent animals are threatened with severe range contraction or extinction. The effect of the rabbit in preventing regeneration of native plants is not always obvious. Many of these plants are long-lived but the populations are reaching a stage where many individuals are dying from old age. If rabbits are not controlled before the remaining plants reach the end of their reproductive lives, there will be a long-term decline of the tree and shrub populations in many parts of the rangelands. The extent of the ecological consequences of this are unknown. Significant changes in bird communities and increased soil erosion are likely to be two of the main consequences. There may be no safe rabbit density for some tree and shrub seedlings particularly within 200 metres of rabbit warrens.
As well as causing detrimental habitat change, rabbits threaten native mammals directly through grazing competition and indirectly through intensified predation by cats and foxes after rabbit numbers crash during droughts or disease outbreaks.
The extent to which rabbits reduce the carrying capacity for livestock is not well quantified, although there are numerous anecdotal accounts of increased carrying capacity for sheep following rabbit control. Competition between sheep and rabbits is likely to be most significant when pasture biomass falls below about 250 kilograms per hectare, especially during and coming out of drought. Rabbits, in combination with other wild grazers and livestock, cause damage to the long-term sustainable use of rangeland for nature conservation and pastoralism. Rabbits cause changes in the quality of forage and damage to the flora and habitat of native fauna.
Rabbit management has historically almost entirely been directed at protecting agricultural production. In more recent times the principles of natural resource management have been widely accepted and promoted, and the need to protect non-agricultural resources recognised. The degree to which control is implemented often depends on how well the problems caused by rabbits are recognised and the resultant priority assigned to rabbit management. By necessity, control effort should be sustained. There are three essential requirements for a pest control technique – necessity, effectiveness and humaneness. The best strategy is to develop a plan which maximizes the effect of control operations and reduces the need to cull large numbers of animals on a regular basis.
Rabbit control techniques have the potential to cause animals to suffer. To minimise this suffering the most humane techniques that will achieve the control program’s aims must be used. This will be the technique that causes the least amount of pain and suffering to the target animal with the least harm or risk to non-target animals, people and the environment. The technique should also be effective in the situation where it will be used (e.g. cage traps will have little effect in a rural setting). It is also important to remember that the humaneness of a technique is highly dependant on whether or not it is correctly employed. In selecting techniques it is therefore important to consider whether sufficient resources are available to fully implement that technique.
It may not be economic for a property to be independent in equipment and labour for rabbit management. Group schemes and cooperative effort provide economies of scale and social benefits that encourage sustained effort. Cooperative control is likely to be more effective than land managers working on their own and can also encourage financial support from governments.
The most commonly used rabbit control techniques are lethal baiting, warren fumigation and destruction, shooting, trapping, exclusion fencing and biological control with RHDV and myxomatosis. Fertility control through immunocontraception or by other chemical means is not currently a viable broadscale control option despite considerable research into their development. Other measures, such as the use of LPG technology to kill rabbits in their warrens, are occasionally used but have not been evaluated for humaneness or efficacy.
Cost-effectiveness, humaneness and efficacy for each control technique are useful in deciding the most appropriate strategy. A brief evaluation of the humaneness of control techniques follows:
Fertility control is seen as a preferred method of broad-scale rabbit control as it offers a potential humane and target specific alternative to lethal methods. However, the method is not currently available for rabbit control.
The use of exclusion fencing is generally regarded as a humane, non-lethal alternative to lethal control methods. However, the high costs of establishing and maintaining rabbit-proof enclosures, limits their use to the protection of valuable pasture, crops and conservation areas. Although exclusion fencing acts as a barrier to rabbits, in some areas it can have negative effects on non-target species by altering dispersion and foraging patterns, and causing entanglement and electrocution. It can also create a significant hazard to wildlife in the event of a bushfire.
Lethal baiting is an important component of integrated rabbit control programs; however, not all poisons are equally humane. Depending on the poison used, target animals can experience pain/sickness and suffering, sometimes for an extended period, before death. Non-target animals including native species, working dogs and stock can also be exposed to poisons either directly by eating baits intended for pest animals (primary poisoning) or through the scavenging of tissues from a poisoned animal (secondary poisoning). Baiting campaigns should be well designed and carefully implemented to minimise any non-target effects. Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and pindone are the poisons currently used for rabbit control in Australia.
In rabbits, clinical signs of 1080 poisoning include lethargy, laboured respiration and increased sensitivity to noise/disturbance. Convulsions also occur, often with gasping and squealing, followed by death. Time to death is variable depending upon the amount 1080 absorbed but is usually around 3 to 4 hours. 1080 is considered to be a more humane poison than pindone.
After ingestion of pindone, rabbits initially show signs of depression/lethargy and anorexia followed by manifestations of haemorrhage including anaemia, laboured breathing, pale mucous membranes and weakness. Bleeding may be visible around the nose, mouth, eyes and anus and animals may pass bloody faeces. Swollen tender joints are common as a result of bleeding into the confined joint space. Discomfort and pain from haemorrhages in internal organs, muscles and joints typically lasts for several days before death. The time to death is around 10 to 14 days after the initial dose. Because anticoagulant poisons take several days to kill, during which time they cause distress disability and/or pain, they are considered inhumane. The use of pindone can only be justified in situations where 1080 cannot be used i.e. in close proximity to urban areas where the risk of accidental poisoning to humans and companion animals is greatest.
Destruction of warrens using explosives (blasting) or ripping is an important component of effective rabbit management. Because warren destruction gives long- term management of rabbit populations, the need for repeated control operations is reduced. It is more humane to perform ripping and blasting when rabbit numbers are at their lowest e.g. after poison baiting, drought or disease outbreak and when they are not breeding. Ripping of the warren causes it to collapse and the rabbits are usually crushed or suffocated. A quick death is more likely when powerful machinery is used in loose soil and the warren is ripped deep enough to cause complete destruction. Failure to collapse deep warren systems may result in some rabbits becoming trapped in partly destroyed tunnels and then suffocating or starving over a long period of time. Direct mechanical wounding can also occur from the ripping tines.
When explosives are used for warren destruction, rabbits may be killed or injured by the effects of the blast or by crushing and suffocation from the collapse of the warren. In most cases the time to death is thought to be quick especially when complete destruction of the warren is achieved.
Warren destruction also affects rabbits that are not inside the warren at the time by depriving them of shelter from extreme heat, cold and predators. Most rabbits that are forced to live above ground after their warren has been destroyed will have little chance of survival.
Chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane) is considered to be highly inhumane and its use is being phased out in all States and Territories. It causes intense irritation of the respiratory tract and profuse watering of the eyes for considerable periods before death. Exposure to chloropicrin that is not immediately lethal has been shown to cause chronic debilitation, with some rabbits taking many weeks to die. Survivors may experience prolonged periods of respiratory distress prior to recovery.
The precise nature and extent of suffering of rabbits after inhalation of phosphine is unknown. Symptoms of phosphine toxicity in humans often include nausea, abdominal pain, headache and convulsions followed by coma. It is not known whether other mammals experience similar symptoms. The time to death will be quicker when high concentrations of phosphine can be achieved throughout the warren. In practice the time taken to achieve adequate phosphine concentrations can be highly variable and is governed by the availability of moisture in the soil and air, or on the fumigation tablets. Phosphine is considered to be more humane than chloropicrin, because it causes less intense suffering and rabbits that escape from fumigated warrens after exposure to sub-lethal concentrations may only experience transient illness, not permanent debilitation. Therefore, phosphine is currently the preferred toxin for fumigation until more humane fumigation methods are developed.
Carbon monoxide is a colourless, odourless gas that causes oxygen depletion leading to unconsciousness and rapid death without pain or discernible discomfort. Fumigation of rabbit warrens with carbon monoxide is currently being investigated as a humane alternative to chloropicrin and phosphine.
Exhaust from idling internal combustion engines is not acceptable as a fumigant as adequate carbon monoxide concentrations cannot be achieved (particularly with modern car engines) and exhaust contaminants such as hydrocarbons, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxides cause severe irritation before death. Also, the exhaust gases produced may be unacceptably hot.
Although carbon dioxide is often used to euthanase other species, it is neither effective nor economical for rabbit warren fumigation. Wild rabbits have a high tolerance to carbon dioxide (i.e. a concentration of 45% CO2 needs to be maintained for at least 1 hour to kill wild rabbits) Also, CO2 disperses poorly throughout the warren.
Shooting can be a humane method of destroying rabbits when it is carried out by experienced, skilled and responsible shooters; the animal can be clearly seen and is within range; and the correct firearm, ammunition and shot placement is used. Achieving a humane kill with a single shot can be difficult as rabbits are a small target. Wounded rabbits should be located and dispatched as quickly and humanely as possible.
All traps have the potential to cause injury and some degree of suffering and distress so should only be used when no practical alternative exists. Traps that contain an animal (e.g. cage or box traps) cause fewer injuries than traps that restrain an animal (e.g. leg-hold traps). Animals caught in a cage trap are not likely to experience significant injuries unless they make frantic attempts to escape. Importantly, non-target animals that are caught in cage traps can usually be released unharmed. Leg-hold traps on the other hand can cause serious injuries to both target and non-target animals such as swelling and lacerations to the foot from pressure of the trap jaws and dislocation of a limb if the animal struggles to escape. If leg-hold traps are used, they must have a rubber-like padding on each jaw which cushions the initial impact and provides friction thus preventing the captured leg from sliding along or out of the jaws. Toothed, steel-jaw traps must not be used as they cause significant injury, pain and distress. The use of toothed, steel-jaw traps is being phased out in all States and Territories.
As well as injuries, trapped animals can suffer from exposure, thirst, starvation, shock, capture myopathy and predation; therefore traps should be placed in a suitable area protected from extremes of weather and must be inspected at least once daily. Trapped animals should be approached carefully and quietly to minimise panic, further stress and risk of injury. Rabbits must be destroyed as soon as possible after capture using cervical dislocation. Non-target animals that are caught but not severely injured should be released at the trap site. If they are injured, but may respond to veterinary treatment, such treatment should be sought. Severely injured non-target animals must be destroyed quickly and humanely.
The deliberate infection of rabbits with the myxoma virus is no longer a commonly used technique, although fleas, which act as vectors of myxomatosis are sometimes released to enhance the spread of the disease, especially in arid areas. Infection with myxoma virus causes anorexia, subcutaneous swellings around the face and ears, and swollen eyelids and conjunctivitis leading to blindness. Time to death depends upon the strain of virus. Infection with a highly virulent strain causes death within 2 weeks, while rabbits infected with less virulent strains may take up to 4 weeks to die. The severity of symptoms and long interval between infection and death indicate that considerable suffering occurs with this disease.
In most rabbits, death from rabbit haemorrhagic disease is sudden. Some animals show no signs of illness prior to death whilst others will have elevated temperature, anorexia, apathy, dullness, prostration and reddened eyes. Respiratory signs (e.g. rapid respiration, bloody nasal discharge) and occasionally nervous signs (e.g. convulsions, paralysis, squealing) may be seen in the later stages. Some rabbits (5 to 10%) may show a chronic or subclinical course of disease. These animals may have jaundice, weight loss and lethargy for up to 1 to 2 weeks before dying. Targeted outbreaks of disease are produced in susceptible rabbit populations either by live capture of rabbits followed by inoculation of virus or by distribution of bait (carrots or oats) coated with virus suspension. For the inoculation procedure, effective handling and restraint techniques should be used to minimise the risk of injury and to reduce the intensity of distress to the rabbit.
Table 1: Humaneness, Efficacy, Cost-effectiveness and Target Specificity of Rabbit Control Methods
|Control technique||Acceptability of technique with regard to humaneness*||Efficacy||Cost-effectiveness||Target Specificity||Comments|
|Fertility control||Conditionally acceptable||Unknown||Unknown||Depends on agent used||No products currently registered.|
|Exclusion fencing||Acceptable||Limited||Expensive||Can be in certain situations||Useful where there is high-value crop/pasture (e.g. market garden/horticultural enterprises) or in conservation areas.
Expensive, therefore impractical for broad scale application.
|Ground baiting with 1080||Conditionally acceptable||Effective||Cost-effective||Potential risk of poisoning non-target animals||Effective for reducing rabbit populations prior to warren destruction. 1080 ingestion can also kill non-target animals including native species, cats, dogs and livestock. 1080 is toxic to humans; operators need to take precautions to safeguard against exposure.|
|Aerial baiting with 1080||Conditionally acceptable||Effective||Cost-effective||Potential risk of poisoning non-target animals||Effective for reducing rabbit populations prior to warren destruction. Useful difficult areas in broadscale areas. 1080 ingestion can also kill non-target animals including native species, cats, dogs and livestock. 1080 is toxic to humans; operators need to take precautions to safeguard against exposure.|
|Pindone baiting||Only acceptable when there is no other alternative
Inhumane compared to 1080
|Effective||Relatively expensive (compared to 1080)||Potential risk of poisoning non-target animals (esp. macropods and other native species)||Should only be used in areas where it is impractical or unsuitable to use 1080 e.g. urban/residential and semi-rural areas.|
|Pressure fumigation of warrens using chloropicrin||Not acceptable||Non-target wildlife using warrens are vulnerable||Inhumane and must not be used.
Alternatives are available.
|Diffusion fumigation of warrens using phosphine||Conditionally acceptable when rabbit populations are low||Variable effectiveness||Expensive||Non-target wildlife using warrens are vulnerable||Labour intensive. Warren is not destroyed therefore it can be easily recolonised. Unsuitable for large areas.|
|Warren destruction by ripping||Conditionally acceptable when rabbit populations are low||Effective||Cost-effective||Non-target wildlife using warrens are vulnerable||Where warrens are the principal shelter for rabbits, ripping is the most cost effective and most long-lasting method of control. Cannot be used in inaccessible, rocky or environmentally sensitive areas.|
|Warren destruction using explosives||Conditionally acceptable when rabbit populations are low||Effective||Relatively expensive (compared to ripping)||Non-target wildlife using warrens are vulnerable||Provides long term management of rabbit populations. Requires trained and licensed operators and adherence to strict OH&S requirements. Effective in inaccessible and rocky areas.|
|Treatment of rabbit warrens using LPG technology (Rid-a-Rabbit®)||Has not been assessed, thought to be inhumane||Unknown||Unknown||Non-target wildlife using warrens are vulnerable||Labour intensive. Warren is not destroyed therefore it can be easily recolonised. Unsuitable for large areas.|
|Ground shooting||Acceptable||Not effective||Not cost-effective||Target specific||Shooting may be effective to control small isolated rabbit populations but is inefficient for general control. It is time consuming and labour intensive and not suitable in certain situations e.g. where dense cover is available, inaccessible or rough terrain, near human habitation.|
|Biological control with RHDV||Conditionally acceptable||Variable||No cost||Target specific||Effectiveness depends on habitat. RHDV outbreaks should be followed up with conventional control methods to achieve more long-term control of rabbit populations. Bait delivery of the virus is a more humane technique of producing outbreaks of RHD because it does not require live capture and handling of rabbits for inoculation.|
|Biological control with myxomatosis||Depends upon strain. Highly virulent strains will kill rabbits quickly.||Unpredictable effectiveness. Has become less effective over time||No cost||Target specific||This is a self-disseminating virus that is already widespread in the environment. It is not routinely used as a control technique though natural outbreaks should be followed up with conventional control methods to achieve more long-term control of rabbit populations.|
|Soft-jawed traps||Conditionally acceptable||Not effective||Not cost-effective||Risk of catching non-target animals||Occasionally used in areas with small isolated rabbit populations but are inefficient for general control.|
|Toothed, steel-jaw traps||Not acceptable||Not effective||Not cost-effective||Risk of catching and causing severe injury and distress to non-target animals||Inhumane and must not be used.
Alternatives are available.
* Acceptable methods are those that are humane when used correctly.
* Conditionally acceptable methods are those that, by the nature of the technique, may not be consistently humane. There may be a period of poor welfare before death.
* Methods that are not acceptable are considered to be inhumane. The welfare of the animal is very poor before death, often for a prolonged period.
For regional variations on control techniques refer to local legislation and regulations. For additional examples refer to the Humane Pest Animal Control Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
These procedures can be found below
All those involved in pest animal control should familiarise themselves with relevant aspects of the appropriate federal and state or territory legislation. The table below gives examples of some of the relevant legislation. This list is by no means exhaustive and is current at September 2012. Please note this list is being reviewed for accuracy
|Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
|Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005
Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008
Animal Welfare Act 1992
Nature Conservation Act 1980
Animal Diseases Act 2005
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996
Firearms Act 1996
Environment Protection Act 1997
|New South Wales
|Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979
Pesticides Act 1999
Rural Lands Protection Act 1998
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921
Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002
Deer Act 2006
Non-Indigenous Animals Act 1987
Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986
|Animal Welfare Act
Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act
|Animal Care and Protection Act 2001
Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996
Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002
Nature Conservation Act 1992
|Animal Welfare Act 1985
Natural Resources Management Act 2004
Controlled Substances Act 1984
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
Dog Fence Act 1946
Fisheries Management Act 2007
|Animal Welfare Act 1993
Vermin Control Act 2000
Poisons Act 1971
Agricultural And Veterinary Chemical (Control of Use) Act 1995
Nature Conservation Act 2002
Police Offences Act 1935
Cat Management Act 2009
|Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994
Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981
Wildlife Act 1975
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
National Parks Act 1975
|Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007
Animal Welfare Act 2002
Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
|Other relevant legislation
Occupational Health and Safety Acts
Dangerous Goods or Substances Acts
Civil Aviation Acts
Note: copies of the above legislation and relevant regulations may be obtained from federal, state and territory publishing services.
Feature image by Neil Schultz
Trudy Sharp and Glen Saunders, 2012. Code of practice for the humane control of rabbits. Model Code of Practice. PestSmart website. https://pestsmart.org.au/toolkit-resource/code-of-practice-rabbits accessed 25-09-2021