The KRBA has historically allowed donkeys at the Station

1. For more than 30 years, there have been donkeys at the Station.
2. Robert explains that, for many years, the KRBA and the Applicant worked together to manage the donkeys. That is because when donkeys strayed south out of Ndaba Gorge (at the southern boundary of the home range) they would be shot by government shooters. The KRBA would then advise the Applicant of the number of donkeys it had culled.[33] Robert describes these arrangements, which ceased in 2017, as being informal.[34]
3. Until 2017 neither the KRBA nor the DPIRD took issue with Kachana allowing donkeys to remain in the Station's home range. While Robert says DPIRD's change in approach from 2017 was due to the Declaration, that is factually incorrect. Donkeys have long been declared as a pest in this State.[35]
4. Taking account of this background, Robert considers that the Respondent is now being heavy handed in its dealings with the Applicant, including in issuing the Control Notice.

1. Another key aspect of the Applicant's case, and Robert's evidence, is that the DPIRD should take its focus off the donkeys and instead consider the success that the Applicant has had in its land management practices at the Station. Robert was asked why donkeys are permitted to graze in the Project Area:[36]

KARL: Why are donkeys so important?

ROBERT: I like the donkeys because they will go into areas in our control management zone where the cattle readily won't go. And I've got, sort of - we're in the rangelands. We're not on great pastoral country. We're not on nice flat ground where it's even going, and you can drive around. We've got hills. We've got - we've got gullies, and we've got ranges. And whether we like it or not, about - on average, we get about a metre of rainfall. And with that much rain, we will grow grass. We will grow vegetation. Sorry, not necessarily grass, but we will grow vegetation. And in that landscape, I have really only two broad options to manage vegetation, and my options are herbivores or fire. And I do a combination of, but in - and - and - and - that - we also use the cattle for that. And - and - and I think, later, that, you know, from the environmental side, that will get spoken a bit too. But the - the donkeys in conjunction with the cattle - they're - they're different grazers. They - they graze on different plants differently. They impact on the environment differently. And if they're managed, their numbers and their behaviours managed, they - they - and we - I believe we have proven, and - and we - you know, there's science out there, not just in Australia but all over, that - that is verifying that. And - and we've got a bit happening locally now, which is great - to - to verify that. So yes, the donkeys are an integral part in our management strategy of the environment, and I don't - like I said, I don't have a - you know, it's - it's - it's - we're managing the impact that they're having on - on the environment to the extent that they are doing a - that they're doing good[.]

1. The Applicant's position on the environmental benefits of allowing LFH to graze in the rangelands is supported by both Mr Russell Shaw and Mr Peter Curry, both of whom gave evidence on a gratis basis.
2. Mr Shaw, an experienced pastoral manager, explains that the 'excessive' number of donkeys he observed in the 1970s have now largely been removed, and while there are some donkeys remaining, in his view, they are effectively managed. Mr Shaw became aware of the Applicant's philosophy regarding LFH in 2021 and has carried out remote sensing to determine the condition of the rangelands at the Station.
3. Like the Applicant, Mr Shaw considers that donkeys have benefitted land and stock management practices in Northern Australia. He considers that donkeys can also be effective in managing wild dogs, which remain an issue in the Kimberley rangelands.
4. To the extent that donkeys may, on occasion, stray beyond the limits of the Station, Mr Shaw considers they will remain within their extended grazing range. He considers the occasional straying of donkeys to be no different from managed or feral cattle straying across what are, in effect, non-existent pastoral boundaries. Fencing of pastoral leases in the Kimberley is unrealistic due to the extent and nature of the geography.
5. Likewise, the evidence of Mr Curry, an experienced environment consultant, speaks to the potential environmental and bushfire benefits that may have resulted from the presence of feral donkeys in the Project Area.

How the Applicant manages the donkeys at the Station

1. As explained, until 2017, the KRBA was well-aware that there were donkeys present on the Station.
2. Since 2017, the Applicant has alone managed the donkeys at the Station, including, where required, culling. The Applicant's management program divides the Station into three distinct areas:

(b) the controlled management zone (the buffer area); and

1. In his evidence, Robert estimates that there are around 150 donkeys at the Station.[37] He considers that a donkey population of between 100 and 150 in the home range is appropriate.[38]
2. However, in saying that, he does not regard the exact number of donkeys as being important. He explained as follows:[39]

I have in my management never focused on an exact number of animals. I have a rough idea of what's in the area, and, like I said, I will adjust my - the numbers based on the impact that I see the animal doing to the environment. I don't really waste resources. It - it benefits me very little to have an exact number because in actual reality, it's impossible to get an exact number, so I've never really focused on it. I would know fairly - relatively accurate what numbers I would expect there, but I focus more so on the risks that they pose to the environment and to - to - and a negative impact - of the risk of negative impacts more so than the exact number. So I will look at amount of food that's available, you know. Like I said, rainfall, lack of rainfall, fires. All of those things will sort of dictate - like I said, I will generally do my reduction of numbers later in the season when food pressure starts to come on - starts to come on board or becomes - could become an issue. Obviously, I've got animal welfare obligations there as well, so I don't want a number that isn't - that I - that, you know, that the country can't support.

1. The control measures employed by the Applicant are explained as follows. Firstly, donkeys are allowed to graze in the Project Area. Robert explains that donkeys in the home range do not associate predation with humans because they are left alone. If there is a need to shoot them, unless the entire group is to be culled, the shooting takes place away from other donkeys.[40] In their home range, donkeys will not generally be shot from a vehicle.[41] The donkeys in the home range are happy, safe and are left alone. As a result, Robert says they will stay in the home range unless impacted by other influences.[42]
2. Secondly, Robert also says that, in practical terms, donkeys can only exit the Project Area by traveling south. The northern boundary is fenced close to the homestead. Robert explains that donkeys that jump the northern fence, so as to encroach on the homestead, are culled on the basis that 'they shouldn't be there'.[43]
3. The natural ridges and terrain along the eastern and western boundaries of the Project Area prevent the donkeys escaping east and west through the rangelands. Robert says he has never seen a donkey east of the Project Area and to the west is the Durack Ranges. He has never seen a donkey go over the Durack Ranges, nor has he seen them travel through the gorges to the Chamberlain River Valley. Robert has not seen donkeys use either Ndaba Gorge or Impi Gorge to access the Chamberlain River Valley.[44]
4. Thirdly, to the south are two buffer areas (termed buffer zone one and two) which, together, comprise the controlled management zone.[45] Donkeys found within this zone may either be herded back north to the Project Area or culled. During his patrols Robert might prompt them to move north. The further south he finds them, the more aggressive he is in his mustering.[46] However, if they keep moving south, they, put simply, 'don't come home'.[47]
5. Robert's evidence on the management of the buffer areas was as follows:[48]

ROBERT: I don't fence the southern area again because the cost and maintenance of that fence would far outweigh and the effectivity of the fence wouldn't come close, so what I - what I do is we have a buffer zone in there an area where they can readily move into and graze that I monitor and actively discourage animals from being in there. As I said in the past, the donkey shooters were doing that. Now, I will do that. With more - further south the animals are, the more aggressive I will be. I will generally shoot the entire - well, shoot the entire population, regardless of what they are - mums, foals, you name it. Like, they're not - it's - it's - it - it - it doesn't matter. If they're there and I don't want them there, they're gone. Further to the northern edge of my buffer zone, I might be a little bit more selective. I might also go down there with a chopper and give them a bit of a hard time and a good scare and say, "Hey, fellows. This is not where you want to be", and - and, you, I have in the past sometimes shot a few individuals out of a family group and made sure the others were heading north at a great rate of knots and then left them, so, by and large, in their home range, the donkeys know, "Hey, if I'm up here we would be left alone. If we go down here we can get into trouble", and if they keep going south, they get in serious trouble. They don't come home. Like, it's - they're not telling their mates what's down there.

KARL: In the project area, is that shared between donkeys and cattle?---

ROBERT: Yes. Yes. There is cattle. I will sometimes put the cattle in an out of that area - - -

KARL: Yes?---But there is - there is cattle throughout Kachana.

ROBERT: Yes. So I've - you know, sometimes when I muster the cattle out of that area, the donkeys in there are that and - well, they're that quiet, I literally muster the cattle between donkeys, so if I'm even in my helicopter, on foot, we just ignore the donkeys, move the cattle out, move the cattle in. The more quieter animals at home Dad calls them in and out of the area. Like. it's - it's - it's - they're not really an issue to me when I'm when - when I'm mustering, just say.

1. Robert surveys the controlled management zone by way of aerial patrols, which he undertakes approximately each quarter (being once every three months). However, he is on the Station all the time and is, therefore, regularly observing the Project Area and controlled management zone. For example, he might fly over the controlled management zone while undertaking other duties, such as mustering either on the Station or another pastoral lease (as he is a helicopter mustering pilot),[49] so can observe what is happening.
2. When conducting the quarterly patrols, he focuses on areas where he is expecting donkeys to be, namely the Project Area and the controlled management zone.[50] In doing so, he is looking for evidence of risks that the donkeys are posing in that area, and to get a general understanding of what is happening. He does not focus on areas where he has not seen donkeys. Rather, he goes to the areas where the donkeys are likely to be.[51]
3. In terms of his observations, in his view, as explained above, the donkeys in the home range are settled, calm and do not fear humans. As an example, he can muster cattle through the donkeys in the home range.[52]
4. Robert explains that, in general terms, donkeys found outside of the Project Area and the controlled management zone will, in effect, be 'dealt with'.[53]
5. In terms of its land management practices, Robert does consider that Kachana needed to 'lift its game', in terms of formalising its management of donkeys at the Station.[54] That is why the Applicant now employs terms such as the 'Project Area' and the 'controlled management zone' and his quarterly observation surveys are now tracked and recorded, to allow these management practices to be independently verified.[55]
6. In cross-examination, while he agreed he is not an expert in donkey behaviour or genetics,[56] Robert says his evidence is based on his personal observations. For that reason, he considers that he can comment specifically on the behaviours of the donkeys on Kachana.[57]

The Applicant's case in the context of the reviewable decision

1. As we have explained, the reviewable decision in this matter is the Respondent's decision to issue the Control Notice.
2. Having heard this matter over four days, and listened to the evidence that Kachana has assembled, which we have briefly canvassed above, while the Applicant certainly does challenge the decision to issue the Control Notice, that is but an aspect of its much broader campaign to persuade the DPIRD, and the KRBA, and now the Tribunal, of what it regards as its success in utilising feral donkeys as an aspect of its land management practices at the Station. That is to say, the case put forward by Kachana is much wider than the reviewable decision giving rise to the Review.
3. However, this broader debate is not a matter for the Tribunal. The question of whether the presence of LFH may deliver environmental and other benefits to the Kimberley rangelands sits well outside the scope of the reviewable decision. Likewise, the negotiations between the parties, and the MoU. The fact that the parties have in the past discussed whether acceptable arrangements could be agreed to allow donkeys to remain on the Station, is no longer relevant in the context of the Control Notice and the associated Review.
4. For this reason and leaving to one side Robert's evidence on how he patrols for donkeys in the Project Area and the controlled management zone, much of the evidence relied upon by the Applicant is, we find, not directly relevant to the Review.
5. That is so because the DPIRD does not frame its case on the basis that donkeys are causing environmental degradation at the Station. Quite understandably, it has simply not engaged with that aspect of the Applicant's case. Rather, its case is simply that Kachana has not sufficiently complied with its obligations under the BAM Act (namely reg 27(4)(b)) to control the number or distribution of feral donkeys on the Station.
6. Accordingly, however much we might consider that the land management practices being employed by Kachana may warrant further consideration and investigation, we have no mandate to engage in, or meaningfully contribute, to that broader debate. It is simply not our role.
7. The reviewable decision before us begins, and ends, with the question of whether the Control Notice should be affirmed, varied or set aside. That question is to be resolved by focusing on whether it can be said that the Applicant is effectively controlling feral donkeys for the purposes of the BAM Act. If we so find, the Control Notice might well be regarded as superfluous.
8. It is necessary that we expressly mark out the precise metes and bounds of the Review because the Applicant's broader campaign is premised, at least implicitly, on an argument that we should not regard feral donkeys as being a pest at the Station. That is also an argument which we cannot engage with.
9. The Declaration, the effect of which was to make feral donkeys a declared pest across the State, was an executive decision made by the Minister under the BAM Act which cannot be reviewed in the Tribunal.
10. Moreover, the relevant statutory regime for agricultural biosecurity in this State, including the control of pests, does not recognise the Station's boundaries. While the Declaration does not operate to fetter our discretion, the simple fact, and one which we cannot ignore, is that feral donkeys are, and have long been, a declared pest across the State. Furthermore, the State Government has long-established programs, the effect of which require donkeys to be controlled, including by way of aerial culling.
11. Nevertheless, while we have no mandate to engage in issues such as the environmental and other benefits of allowing donkeys to graze in the rangelands, we are not blind to the fact that Kachana, supported by experts such as Dr Arian Wallach,[58] Mr Curry and Mr Shaw, firmly believe that it is an emerging land stewardship concept that ought not be dismissed and, indeed, has potential for broader application.
12. And, it must be said, as we will come to, we can sympathise with the position the Applicant finds itself in. It has long allowed donkeys to graze in its home range, which, while perhaps not ratified or approved in any formal sense, was at least tacitly tolerated by the relevant agencies. However, for reasons which it seems the Applicant is still trying to understand, there has been a change in philosophy or approach taken by the KRBA and the DPIRD following its initial aerial survey in 2021, that resulted in the issuing of the Control Notice.
13. Hence, while we are required to proceed on the basis that feral donkeys are a declared pest, we do understand why the Applicant places the emphasis it does on seeking to provide a rationale for allowing, and continuing to allow, donkeys to remain in the Station's home range.

1. Dr Zabek is a Senior Development Officer at the DPIRD dealing with Invasive Species and Environmental Biosecurity. In her role, she advises the State Government on effective evidence-based management options for LFH in Western Australia.
2. Dr Zabek's qualifications include a bachelor's degree in equine science as well as a PhD in wild equid ecology from the University of Queensland.
3. The Respondent's case is largely framed around the opinions of Dr Zabek set out in her witness statement[59] and her two reports dated 31 March 2023[60] and 16 January 2024[61] prepared as part of the Review.[62] Dr Zabek gave oral evidence extending over three hearing days which, in effect:
   • (a) provides a detailed explanation of the rationale for, and the undertaking of, the aerial surveys (which are explained above at [56] to [71]) conducted by the DPIRD;
   • (b) explains the data that she has relied on to form an opinion on feral donkeys, including their tracked locations; potential grazing range, movement habits and other natural tendencies; and, in doing so; and

(c) critiques the effectiveness of the Applicant's management of donkeys at the Station.

1. Dr Zabek visited Kachana in 2018 and interviewed Chris. At that time, Chris advised that there were at least 100 donkeys on the Station, but the exact number was unknown.[63]
2. As we have explained, Dr Zabek co-designed, but did not participate in, the first aerial survey in December 2022 where 72 donkeys were observed either within the Project Area, or just beyond its eastern fringe. Dr Zabek notes that, during that survey, donkey dung was detected in the Salmond River area, approximately 10 kms north-west of the Project Area.[64]
3. Dr Zabek participated in the second aerial survey in December 2022, where 34 donkeys were observed. One donkey was also observed approximately 7 kms south of the Project Area, within the controlled management zone.[65]
4. The third aerial survey in October 2023 observed 117 donkeys, with many again located at or beyond the eastern fringe of the Project Area. Two donkeys were south of the Project Area, one at its southern fringe and one approximately 4 kms away.[66]
5. Dr Zabek has watched the DPIRD's 2021 interview with Chris. Having observed that interview, it was apparent to Dr Zabek that Kachana did not have in place any kind of formal arrangements as to how it managed donkeys on the Station.[67] During the interview, Chris said that Kachana had culled:

(a) 25 male donkeys (Jacks) in late 2018 (including 23 in December 2018) in the south of the Project Area. However, Chris was unable to confirm whether the culled donkeys were from the home range such that the herd was spreading south, or whether the donkeys had strayed on to the Station; and

(b) four young Jacks in 2020 which were traversing the northern boundary of the Project Area.

1. On 12 November 2021, Kachana informed the Respondent that it observed 25 donkeys towards the southern boundary of the Station. Shortly after, on 25 November 2021, Kachana then advised that it had culled 23 donkeys (again mostly Jacks).
2. Dr Zabek assumes that the 23 culled donkeys were from the herd of 25 reported on 12 November 2021. The exact location of the cull was not provided but was said to have occurred in the northern part of the Tablelands Station, immediately south of the Station. Kachana did not advise whether the culled donkeys were from its home range or whether the donkeys were from elsewhere.
3. As we will explain further, Dr Zabek's overarching view is that the Applicant is not effectively controlling the donkeys at the Station to reduce their number or distribution or to prevent or contain their spread.
4. Her view of the evidence is that the unfenced Project Area (which has an area of 26 km2) is not sufficient to passively contain the donkeys on the basis of Kachana's land management practices, including its natural topography, the northern fence near the homestead, salt licks[68] and the management of the southern buffer zones.

1. As part of the Review, Kachana provided detailed information on the control measures, namely culling, it had undertaken at the Station between 2018 and June 2023. That information is set out in the table below.

Male donkeys shot to the south of the Project Area. It was not established whether the donkeys were from the home range or from elsewhere.

Male donkeys removed while crossing the northern boundary of the Project Area.

Original Control Notice issued on 9 August 2021

Male donkeys removed somewhere from the Stock Valley Route within the northern part of the Tablelands Station. Whether the donkeys were from the home range or from elsewhere was not clear.

1. Therefore, based on the Applicant's evidence, it has culled 125 donkeys (with 27 being culled before the Control Notice and 98 after it was issued in August 2021). For this reason, the Applicant submits that, in effect, it has already complied with the Control Notice. However, from the evidence before us, at no time has the Applicant sought to withdraw the Review on the basis that it had, in practical terms, complied with the Control Notice.
2. The culling data provided by Kachana prompted the DPIRD to undertake the third, and last, aerial survey which post-dated the latest cull undertaken by the Applicant (two donkeys in June 2023). As explained, the third survey was conducted over a smaller area, with more intense surveying, of the Stock Route and Chamberlain River Valleys.
3. As has been set out, during that third survey, a total of 117 donkeys were observed both within the Project Area, but also in the controlled management zone.

Dr Zabek's analysis of the donkey population at the Station

1. Dr Zabek's opinion is that, by reason of the number of donkeys observed during the third survey in October 2023, and despite its removal of some 125 donkeys, Kachana did not taken steps effectively to reduce the number or distribution of feral donkeys between 2018 and 2023.
2. The Respondent is in no position to challenge Kachana's evidence as to its culling activities between 2018 and 2023. Accordingly, Dr Zabek has accepted Kachana's data as a basis for her most recent report in January 2024.[69] Kachana's evidence is that it has culled an average of 21 donkeys being culled per year between 2018 and 2023.
3. Robert's estimate of there being 150 donkeys has also informed Dr Zabek's population analysis.
4. Dr Zabek has assumed that there were 150 donkeys in 2018. It is to be recalled that in 2018, when Dr Zabek met Chris, he was uncertain about the number of donkeys that were on the Station but stated there was at least 100. In giving evidence, Robert estimated there were 150 donkeys.
5. As is set out in Figure 2 below, an average removal rate of 21 donkeys per year for 6 years would result in a 2023 donkey population of between 102 and 324, depending on the growth rate. If a very conservative growth rate of 10% was assumed, the population would be 102 as at 2023. However, a 25% growth rate would result in a 2023 population as high as 324.[70]

1. Dr Zabek stresses that it is unknown whether the donkeys that were claimed to have been culled by the Applicant were from its home range or elsewhere. If the donkeys were not from the Station, the donkey population would be 'considerably higher'.[71]
2. Dr Zabek also opines that the population growth rate of feral donkeys depends on a range of variables, including survival rates, the age of the first parturition, and length of the breeding cycle. In the absence of population management (or in the wake of a significant reduction in population), lack of predation, unlimited nutrition and low population densities, annual maximum feral donkey population growth rates have been reported to reach between 20 to 29%.[72]
3. Dr Zabek references a study of the Victoria River District in Northern Australia with low-density populations and in circumstances where food availability was not a limiting factor. In that study, the maximum finite rate of feral donkey population increases was between 23 to 28%.[73] Accordingly, in the context of the Review, Dr Zabek considers an estimated population growth rate of between 10 to 25% as appropriate.
4. Given the evidence that the Project Area is lush, Dr Zabek reasons that food availability is unlikely to be a limiting factor. Furthermore, the apparent preferential removal of Jacks by Kachana (based on its reported cull events), has likely led to a population imbalance, biased towards Jennys. As more females in a population give birth to more foals each year, Dr Zabek considers that this has likely increased the reproductive rate of the population, which, in turn, has accelerated the annual population growth rate.[74]
5. While the annual rate of population growth of feral donkeys at the Station is unknown, what is known is that in October 2023, the DPIRD observed 117 donkeys.
6. 117 donkeys represent a considerably higher population than the more conservative estimates in her analysis of growth scenarios (such as 10%). In Dr Zabek's opinion, based on the known factors (a tendency to cull Jacks and a lush physical environment in the home range), the population growth rate at the Station 'could be as high as 20%'.[75] That being the case, the donkey population at the Station would exceed 230.
7. Accordingly, based on an average of 21 culls per year, in the context of what was observed during the third aerial survey, Dr Zabek is not at all satisfied that the Applicant's control measures have effectively reduced the number or distribution of donkeys at the Station. To the contrary, she considers that the donkey population is likely to be increasing or, at best, being maintained.[76]
8. Dr Zabek has also considered the efforts that will be required to reduce the number or distribution and to prevent or contain the spread of donkeys from Kachana over the next 10 years. Starting from a premise that there were 159 donkeys on the Station in 2023,[77] with an annual growth rate ranging between 15 to 20%,[78] Dr Zabek has then calculated the donkey population based on three different cull rates:

Scenario 1: removal of 21 donkeys per year, as per the Applicant's evidence;

Scenario 2: removal of 30 donkeys per year; and

Scenario 3: removal of 40 donkeys per year.

1. In each scenario, four different population growth rate scenarios were considered (10%, 15%, 20% and 25%).
2. In Scenario 1, at a very conservative growth rate of 15% per annum, the removal of 21 donkeys each year would result in a 2033 population of 153; meaning the existing population would be maintained. However, if a growth rate of 20% is assumed, the donkey population would almost double by 2033 (to 330).[79]
3. In Scenario 2, assuming a conservative growth rate of 15% per annum, the removal of 30 donkeys each year would slowly reduce the population such that all donkeys would be removed by 2032. However, if a growth rate of 20% is assumed, there would still be 50 donkeys at the Station in 2033.[80]
4. In Scenario 3, removal of 40 donkeys per year would considerably reduce the population, regardless of the assumed growth rate.[81]
5. Dr Zabek also observes that there are other means by which the distribution of donkeys could be managed at the Station. Such measures may include any, or a combination, of the following strategies:

(a) containing the donkeys by fencing the Project Area so as to prevent the spread of donkeys away from the Station;

(b) domesticating the donkeys in accordance with the BAM (IMSA) Regulations. In doing so, all donkeys would need to be identified allowing their visible distinction, namely by branding. The Applicant would also need to demonstrate efforts to contain the donkeys (i.e. fencing);

(c) complying with the Control Notice by removing a minimum of 117 donkeys, which was the number 'known to be alive' as at the date of the third aerial survey (in October 2023). The removal of 117 donkeys would not eliminate the donkey herd, but would considerably reduce:

(iii) the biosecurity risk of donkeys, and/or their offspring dispersing away from the Station.

(d) removing 40 donkeys per annum for the next 5 years so as to gradually reduce:

(ii) the likely increase in the growth of the population; and

(iii) the biosecurity risk of donkeys, and/or their offspring dispersing away from the Station.

1. Dr Zabek is of the view that the Project Area (which has an area of 26 km2) is not of a sufficient such as to voluntarily 'confine' donkeys. To explore this issue, Dr Zabek tracked the movements of seven feral donkey herds in the Kimberley. This GPS data was made available via the KRBA feral donkey Judas program. The herds were tracked for an average period of 21 months (with a range of 2.6 to 40 months).[82]
2. The average home range (that is, how far they moved) for these herds was 173.6 km2 (with a range of 34.2 to 386.3 km2). Within four of the herds, some donkeys were culled, and Dr Zabek considers that this may influence the behaviour of the herd, such as to increase the geographic size of their home range.
3. However, three of the herds she studied were unaffected by culling. Within these three herds, the smallest recorded home range was 34.2 km2, nearly 10 km2 (being in excess of 30%) larger than the Project Area.[83] Dr Zabek is therefore of the view that donkeys need more space to roam and cannot be effectively contained within the Project Area.[84]
4. Karl put to Dr Zabek that the controlled management zone, which is 25 km2 in area,[85] should be included in any assessment of the area of the Station's 'home range'. That is because, as per the Applicant's management practices, donkeys can be present in these buffer zones, so long as they return north to the Project Area; if they head further south, they are likely to be removed.[86]
5. Dr Zabek's response to this line of questioning was that, for two reasons, it does not change her view that the Project Area is too small to naturally contain the donkeys.[87] The first is that the Applicant's long­held view is that the donkeys are intended to remain in the home range. The second is that the fact that the donkeys are grazing further away from the Project Area means that they need more roam, and moreover, provides some evidence that the population may be growing.
6. The average size of donkey herds removed from the Kimberley by the KRBA between 1994 and 2017, was 7.18 donkeys. If a donkey population within the Project Area of 150 is again assumed, Dr Zabek explains that the donkeys would form, in a social context, up to 22 different herds. Although feral donkeys are known to share overlapping home ranges, Dr Zabek considers it highly unlikely that all these herds would voluntarily, and equally, share the Project Area. At 26 km2, Dr Zabek explains that, in her opinion, the Project Area is not of sufficient size to accommodate even one of these donkey herd's home range.
7. Accordingly, Dr Zabek is of the view that in order to effectively control the donkeys within the home range, they would need to be restrained by a physical fence.
8. Dr Zabek also examined data from a group of donkeys which were tracked along the Chamberlain River (along the Stock Route Valley, approximately 60 kms south-west of the Station) (refer Figure 9 below). Again, this data was made available via the KRBA's Judas program. Analysis of the spatial data indicated that the group had a home range that was ≈ 300 km2.
9. Dr Zabek observed that the spatial data demonstrated that the group moved a considerable distance along the Chamberlain River and the Stock Route Valley, which is the same valley in which the movement of donkeys was reported by the Applicant in 2018 and 2021, and in which the Project Area is located.[88]

1. Dr Zabek also tracked the movements, again via GPS data from the Judas program, of eight groups of feral donkeys near the Station between 1999 and 2016. That data, shown in Figure 10 below, clearly shows that the donkeys move considerable distances, far beyond the geographic area of the Project Area. Dr Zabek notes that groups did move out of the Project Area, notwithstanding the Applicant's land management practices which have been in place since 2002.[89]

1. As is set out in Table 1 and Figure 12 below, Dr Zabek also assessed the historical habitat of feral donkeys on the Station. This data was available, again, via the KRBA's Judas program. She assessed the spatial locations of 232 donkeys that were culled on the Station, and a further 235 that were culled near the Station, between 1999 and 2016. She has interpolated the locations of the culled donkeys against known rangeland habitats found on the Station, based on the Rangeland Land System Mapping (GIS 2018).[90]

Figure 12: Spatial representation of three main habitat types (H1, H2, and H3) within and beyond Kachana Station; blue line - Kachana station boundary, and red line - approximate location of the Project Area within habitat H2. Figure was created by the author from land and habitat data sourced from GIS 2018.

1. In short, there are three habitats (H1, H2 and H3) within the Station, with the Project Area (shown in red) being within Habitat H2. Dr Zabek calculated habitat use based on the location of the culled donkeys. In doing so, she referred to literature relating to resource selection by animals and the design, and analysis of, field studies thereof.[91] Dr Zabek's analysis of that data indicates that feral donkeys showed 'a strong preference towards high carrying capacity habitat', namely Habitat H1, located west of the Chamberlain River, about 3 kms west of the Project Area. Habitat H1 was utilised 3.5 times more than Habitat H2, and over five times more than Habitat H3.
2. Dr Zabek opines that the proximity of the donkeys preferred habitat (Habitat H1) may influence donkey movements, with the result that donkeys exit the Project Area through the hills, or through either Ndaba or Impi Gorges, towards their preferred habitat. Because their preferred habitat extends beyond the boundaries of the Station, the effect may be that donkeys are exiting the Station, spreading south and west.[92]
3. Habitat H2, in which the Project Area is located, is neither preferred nor avoided by donkeys. Accordingly, the data suggests that donkeys may occupy Habitat H2 if sufficient nutrition is available. However, because this habitat extends beyond the Station's boundaries, Dr Zabek considers it unlikely that donkeys will voluntarily remain within the Project Area.
4. This is evinced, she considers, by the locational data of the 235 donkeys that were culled beyond the Station's boundaries which suggests that donkeys were utilising the H2 habitat along the Stock Route Valley, notwithstanding the Applicant's land management practices. Habitat H3 was generally avoided by donkeys.[93]

1. Dr Zabek further observes that the movement, and therefore the home range size, of donkeys is influenced by 'numerous and complex natural behaviours'.[94] The availability of nutrition is not the sole factor. Examples of natural behaviours include the dispersal of sub-adults from natal groups; exploratory or territorial behaviours of adult Jacks during breeding seasons; temporary dispersal of adult Jennys to give birth; the utilisation of hilltops to avoid insects or to detect danger, or to seek shade or shelter during harsh environmental conditions.[95]
2. Dr Zabek explains that:

Seasonal resource distribution, habitat size, topography, different seasonal use of habitats within the home range, or spacing of individuals both within and between groups all affect the distribution of female and male donkeys across the landscape. ... In addition, donkey groups generally remain cohesive over a period of time, but they rarely form permanent associations[.][96]

1. The available evidence indicates to Dr Zabek that the availability of nutritious habitat within the Project Area has not been sufficient to contain the donkeys and will not prevent their spread to other parts of the Station, and beyond its boundaries.
2. In her view, the Project Area is simply not large enough to contain donkeys and that the Applicant's current approach is inadequate given that, in her view, a donkey could move out of the Project Area and through and beyond the controlled management zone (which is 12 kilometres in length) in a single day.[97] That being the case, the quarterly aerial patrols will not identify donkeys that have moved away from the Station in the intervening period.

1. Dr Zabek has also led a study into the genetic connectivity of feral donkeys across Western Australia, including the Kimberley. Her study was referenced in her initial report, but she was able to speak to the results at the final hearing. Dr Zabek explains that genetics 'don't lie' and they tell you how much 'genetic material is shared amongst the animals'.[98] The project allowed Dr Zabek to understand the 'kin lines' of donkeys between mothers and daughters; mother to grandmother, siblings and sub-siblings'.[99]
2. Dr Zabek explained that 50% of all the analysed samples confirm that immediate family members can be dispersed by as much as 50 kms. Dr Zabek postulates that data as against the size of the Project Area. She therefore queries the Applicant's contention that the donkeys within the Project Area do not disperse.[100] The study indicated that the dispersal of donkeys can extend for over 300 kms. She explains that:

What I'm learning from this study is that donkeys move much further than we give them credit for. They are quite connected across the entire Kimberley. They share the same genes. They - they form one genetic population and you can only form one big genetic population if you move freely across the landscape. And that is what those animals have been doing for generations.[101]

[the genetics study] is another piece of evidence for me to strongly believe that animals in Kachana Station are not staying for the entire life all the time within a project area. If some animals will decide to stay, and I would agree that some probably would, because if you have females that are very strong with nutritional needs, because they are either all the time pregnant or having followed food that they have to feed, so they have a high nutritional needs, so I wouldn't - probably it's likely that they will probably stay within this good habitat that is claimed by the applicant to be so good and nutritious, but there's so many animals that constitute the population and when I said about my interest in population demography and age structure, that means that the female - pregnant females only constitute part of the population. There will be jacks, which the male donkeys that will venture further because they will be looking for resources, for mates, for females. There will be all the offspring that needs to go somewhere. So there's so much more happening in a population of those donkeys that we know or what we are told happens and this genetic study was just additional piece of evidence to make me believe that they disperse.[102]

Dr Zabek's assessment: Kachana's control measures are inadequate

1. Dr Zabek explains that, even accepting the Applicant's evidence as to its culling activities between 2018 and 2023, the control measures being employed at the Station, namely natural geography and topography, nutrition within the home range, the provision of salt licks, self-herding and low-stress mustering, are not sufficient to contain feral donkeys within the Project Area and, moreover, within the boundaries of the Station. In her view, in order to adequately contain the donkeys, a fence is needed.[103]
2. If the Applicant is unwilling to adequately contain the donkeys, or domesticate them, the only other effective measure to control the population is to either remove the 'known-to-be-alive' number of donkeys (which as at October 2023, was 117) or to remove a sufficient number on an annual basis to progressively reduce the size of the population.[104]
3. Dr Zabek does not agree that the Applicant's primary management activity, being the dedicated quarterly aerial patrols, is sufficient to control either the number or distribution of donkeys. In her view, the aerial patrols that are conducted are not frequent enough nor do they cover sufficient terrain.[105] Dr Zabek is unsure whether it would be cost­effective to undertake more frequent and broader patrols but is firmly of the view that the Applicant's current approach does not provide a satisfactory control response having regard to how far donkeys move over 365 days in all directions.[106]

1. As we have set out, the applicable statutory scheme is directed to the management of biosecurity issues within Western Australia.
2. The application of that statutory scheme to feral donkeys arises by way of the Declaration and has the result that, leaving to one side the Control Notice, the Applicant is not permitted to keep or cultivate feral donkeys and is required to report their presence, or suspected presence.
3. Furthermore, by reason of s 30(3) of the BAM Act, the Applicant is under a duty to take 'prescribed control measures' to control feral donkeys.
4. The Declaration specifies that feral donkeys have been designated as Category C3 under reg 7(1) of the BAM Regulations across the entire State. The Category C3 applies where the Minister is of the opinion that eradication of the declared pest is not feasible, but is necessary, to either alleviate the harmful impact of, reduce the number or distribution of, or prevent or contain the spread of, the declared pest.
5. As we have set out at [28] above, reg 27(1) sets out a number of control measures which are prescribed for the purposes of s 30(3) of the BAM Act. In our view, the prescribed control measures set out in reg 27(1) are to be read as being exhaustive.
6. In the language of Tobias JA in Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council,[107] reg 27(1) has an appearance of exhaustiveness as to the control measures that may be employed in the context of a declared pest for the purposes of s 30 of the BAM Act. This is reinforced by reg 27(4), set out below, which provides that only the control measures specified in reg 27(1) are to be deployed to control a declared pest.
7. Accordingly, in our view, the statutory scheme does not recognise the Applicant's arrangements, such as the maintenance of the Project Area, and the operation of the controlled management zone, as acceptable control measures for feral donkeys.

1. By reason of reg 27(4), in the context of the Category C pests, the Applicant 'must take such of the control measures specified in [reg 27(1)] as are reasonable and necessary to':

(a) alleviate the harmful impact of the declared pest in the area for which it is declared; or

(b) reduce the number or distribution of the declared pest in the area for which it is declared; or

(c) prevent or contain the spread of the declared pest in the area for which it is declared.

1. Contrary to the Applicant's submissions,[108] in our view, reg 27(4) is not to be construed as applying disjunctively, notwithstanding the use of the word 'or'.[109]
2. In the context of the applicable statutory scheme, we read the requirements in sub regulation (4) as each requiring the taking of reasonable and necessary steps. There may be instances where all three sub regulations are engaged. That is, in order to meet the requirements of s 30(3) of the BAM Act, it may be 'reasonable and necessary' to carry out control activities for the purposes of any or all of the circumstances identified in (a), (b) and/or (c).
3. To read reg 27(4) otherwise would be to ignore the intent and purpose of the BAM Act which is, relevantly, to take reasonable and necessary steps to control declared pests.[110]
4. In this instance, the Respondent submits that sub-regulations (b) and (c) are engaged in that reasonable and necessary control measures are needed to both 'reduce the number or distribution or feral donkeys' and also to 'contain [their] spread'. We accept the Respondent's submissions on the construction of reg 27(4) of the BAM Regulations.

The DPIRD is not pressing for donkeys to be eradicated

1. The Applicant submits, in effect, that the DPIRD is interpreting reg 27(4) to require it to pursue eradication of what is (in effect, 'only') a Category C pest.[111] For the following three reasons, we do not accept that submission
2. Firstly, we note the decision before us arises from the Control Notice, and not the overarching duty created by s 30(3) read together with reg 7(1) and reg 27 of the BAM Regulations. Accordingly, the Control Notice requires specified actions to be undertaken. It does not, by its terms, require the Applicant to seek to, as it were, eradicate donkeys on the Station.
3. Secondly, the duty to take the control actions identified in reg 27(1) so as to give effect to reg 27(4), must be 'necessary and reasonable'. The ordinary meaning of the words 'necessary' and 'reasonable' in reg 27(1) are directed to matters of context. That is, what control actions are necessary and reasonable will depend on the circumstances in question.
4. Thirdly, the evidence of Dr Zabek, which we accept, is that the cull required by the Control Notice will not result in donkeys being eradicated on the Station, especially taking account of the effluxion of time since the last aerial survey in October 2023.

1. We find that Dr Zabek was an impressive witness. She is highly credentialed, experienced and has the requisite expertise to offer opinions and insights into the behaviour of LFH in the Kimberley rangelands, including feral donkeys. Dr Zabek amassed a wide range of evidence from the KRBA, and elsewhere, that has led to, and supports, her view that the Applicant is not adequately controlling the donkeys at the Station in a manner which aligns with the intent of the BAM Act.
2. We also find Dr Zabek gave her evidence openly, candidly and most importantly, impartially. We had every sense that her evidence was directed to assisting the Tribunal make the correct and preferable decision.
3. That is not to say that we reject Robert's evidence as to the land management practices that are being employed at the Station. Robert struck us as a forthright and honest witness who, we accept, has long had experience in dealing with donkeys both at the Station and in the Kimberley rangelands generally.
4. Nevertheless, as we come to set out our findings, we proceed, as we must, on the basis that feral donkeys are a declared pest under the BAM Act. As we have also explained, the Review is not an inquiry into whether allowing donkeys to graze in the rangelands is a land stewardship concept that may bring about a range of environmental and other benefits. By reason of the Declaration, the Applicant is under a duty to control donkeys. That duty applies regardless of the Control Notice and the Review.
5. In broad terms, we accept the evidence of Dr Zabek, which was not seriously or meaningfully contradicted by the Applicant. Accordingly, our detailed findings are as follows:
   • (1) The Applicant is not reducing the number and distribution of feral donkeys. It has not complied with its obligation to control donkeys at the Station in a manner which accords with the BAM Act and BAM Regulations. Maintaining a population of up to, on Robert's evidence, 150 feral donkeys, is, of itself, hardly consistent with the underlying fact that they are a declared pest that must be controlled and are not permitted to be kept.[112]

Leaving to one side the Control Notice, the Applicant is, we find, plainly not taking reasonable and necessary control measures to control the number and distribution of feral donkeys as required by reg 27(4)(a) of the BAM Regulations.

(2) Feral donkeys are at risk of spreading from the Station. The Applicant is not effectively taking action to prevent or contain the spread of donkeys for the purposes of reg 27(4)(c) of the BAM Regulations. While we accept that the Review has prompted it to take steps to improve and formalise its management approach to donkeys, for the reasons set out below, we do not consider these arrangements to be adequate:

• (a) we are satisfied, and we find, that the natural home range of donkeys extends well beyond the geographical area available in the Project Area. The data from tracked donkeys referred to, and opined upon, by Dr Zabek demonstrates that donkeys can travel long distances and that a home range can be up to ≈ 400km2. The genetic study into feral donkeys headed by Dr Zabek only reinforces this view. We agree with Dr Zabek that the genetic study supports a conclusion that only some of the donkeys will stay at the Station for their lifetime. For a range of reasons, there will be donkeys that leave the Station.
• (b) in the tracked donkey herds studied by Dr Zabek, in herds where there was no culling, the smallest recorded grazing range was 30% larger than the Project Area. While the Station's home range may indeed be lush, such that many of the donkeys are settled and satisfied, it is not in contest that donkeys can and do move beyond the Project Area. That is, of itself, evinced by the need for the controlled management zone;

(c) assuming, consistent with Robert's evidence, that there are 150 donkeys at the Station, there would be up to 22 different social groups present. Based on Dr Zabek's analysis, we consider it unlikely that 22 different herds would voluntarily share the Project Area on a permanent basis.

To the contrary, the Project Area would, we find, become a contested space leading to the spread and distribution of some donkeys away from the Project Area. That is especially so given that the Applicant's culling is targeted towards male Jacks meaning the donkey population at the station is not gender balanced, also likely leading to an increased rate of population growth given the population bias towards Jennys;

(d) the Project Area comprises habitat that is not preferred by donkeys. The habitat analysis undertaken by Dr Zabek indicates the Project Area comprises H2 habitat which is not favoured by donkeys. It is habitat that is found across approximately one third of the Station. The location of donkeys culled between 1999 and 2016 confirms the presence of donkeys beyond the Project Area, notwithstanding the Applicant's land management practices;

(e) the targeted patrolling of the controlled management zone approximately every 90 days is not sufficient given Dr Zabek's opinion, which we accept, that donkeys could travel through and beyond the zone in a single day. Nor are we satisfied that Robert's incidental observations of the Station and, in particular, the controlled management zone, at other times is sufficient for us to be satisfied that the Applicant is effectively controlling the risk of donkeys exiting the home range.

To the contrary, we are very concerned that while Robert is doing his absolute best to manage the distribution and spread of donkeys, the quarterly surveys are not frequent enough. In our view, donkeys are well capable of leaving the Station between these patrols;

(f) the culling of 125 donkeys between 2018 and 2023 has not sufficiently controlled the donkey population at the Station. That is evident by reason that, despite these controls, the third aerial survey undertaken by the Respondent in October 2023 observed 117 donkeys. As explained by Dr Zabek, this represents the minimum 'known to be alive population'. There would be other donkeys that were not able to be observed. Robert agreed that donkeys can be difficult to spot from the air;[113] and

(g) the Applicant's culling of an average of 21 donkeys a year is not aggressive enough to manage the donkey population in a manner that complies with the purpose and intent of the BAM Act. With an average of 21 donkeys being removed per year, unless the growth rate proves to be very conservative (15% or less), the donkey population is likely to grow.

However, if there were 150 donkeys at the Station in 2018, the fact that 117 donkeys were observed in October 2023, almost 6 years later, inclines us to find that the population growth rate has not been at the more conservative end. If a growth rate of 20% is assumed, the donkey population will be growing in what is, as we have explained, a home range that is smaller than the natural home range of donkeys. In so finding, we accept Dr Zabek's view that the growth rate for the donkey population at the Station is, indeed, likely to be as high as 20%.[114]

(3) In circumstances where we have found that the feral donkeys on the Station are not reducing in number or distribution, and their spread is not being adequately controlled, the Control Notice is both a necessary and reasonable response in the context of the applicable statutory scheme established by the BAM Act and the BAM Regulations.

1. In our view, taking account of our key findings above, the correct and preferable decision as at the time of the decision on the Review is to affirm the Control Notice.
2. As we have explained, we accept the evidence of Dr Zabek and find that the measures that are being undertaken at the Station are not sufficient to effectively control the number, distribution and spread of the feral donkey population that has long existed at the Station.
3. Accordingly, the Control Notice is required to specifically dictate the number of donkeys that must now be removed. It is necessary and reasonable because the Applicant has not, and is not, complying with its duty to control the number, distribution and spread of what is a declared pest under s 30(3) of the BAM Act.
4. Although we could, we are not minded to vary the decision under review so as to mandate an annual cull over a number of years. We are of the view that action needs to be taken now to address this issue. Moreover, as Dr Zabek explained, requiring, for example, 40 donkeys to be culled over 5 years results in more animals needing to be shot.[115] Like Dr Zabek, in order to be as humane as possible, we prefer to minimise the culling by instead requiring compliance with the Control Notice.
5. While we can appreciate that the Applicant has long allowed donkeys to graze in the rangelands in the Station's home range, and that for an extended period, this practice appears to have been tolerated by the KRBA and the DPIRD, the simple fact is that feral donkeys are a declared pest. While our decision as to whether to affirm or otherwise the Control Notice is discretionary, we are unable to put to one side the fact of the Declaration and the responsibilities on landowners that flow from that.
6. While it is not for us to justify or defend the Declaration, as is set out in the LFH Strategy, it is plain that LFH are regarded as a threat to inter alia the economic output of the pastoral industry, given that LFH and cattle compete, as it were, for the same grazing areas. In saying that, we do acknowledge the Applicant's evidence that feral donkeys graze in areas of the rangelands that cattle cannot access. We will say a little more about this shortly.
7. We should also note that that time has moved on. The last aerial survey of the Station by the DPIRD occurred in October 2023 where 117 donkeys were observed. Based on the evidence of Dr Zabek, unless control measures have been employed by the Applicant in the meantime, the donkey population is likely to have grown further. The point being that compliance with the Control Notice was never intended to, and will not, eradicate donkeys from the Station.
8. It is also apparent to us that, going forward, should the Applicant wish to keep and retain feral donkeys, it must, as it were, persuade the KRBA and the Respondent that it can effectively manage and control the number or distribution of the donkey population. As we have found, the current informal arrangements employed by the Applicant to date have not been sufficient in that regard, a point which Robert fairly noted to be the case.
9. For whatever reason, the informal arrangements that led to the DPIRD and the KRBA, in effect, tolerating the presence of donkeys at the Station ceased long ago. The Applicant has been aware of this for a number of years now. If the Applicant is serious about retaining donkeys, it must commit to a more rigorous and transparent set of arrangements that provide a level of comfort to the KRBA and the Respondent, who manage and safeguard the broader interests of the pastoral industry, that the donkey population will not:

1. In the background of this Review, it is clear that the Applicant has, at times, buried its head in the sand in terms of appreciating the fact that the arrangements that had been tolerated for a period of time, could no longer be allowed to continue unchecked and that more aggressive control of the donkeys was required.
2. In July 2021, the KRBA/DPIRD tried to discuss possible arrangements with the Applicant on this very question, but the Applicant simply chose not to engage. It is therefore unsurprising that a Control Notice was ultimately issued.

1. Before we conclude, we wish to observe that it may well be worthwhile for the DPIRD and the KRBA to consider closely, and perhaps even partner with, the Applicant in exploring what has been the effect of allowing donkeys to graze in the rangelands.
2. While the possible environmental benefits of LFH is not an aspect of the Review, as we have stated, we are not blind to the opinions that were offered which support the Applicant's philosophy on LFH. And, it must be said, while the KRBA speaks of its success in its long-running program to cull LFH in the rangelands, it is almost certainly the case that land management practices have moved on since 1978, when the donkey culling program in the Kimberley region commenced.
3. However, in saying that, we do observe that the evidence, including environmental evidence, that was put forward by the Applicant in this case contained much anecdotal opinion, but little specific data. For example, given that cattle and donkeys intermingle in the rangelands, how can one be sure that the lush environment within the home range is due to the presence of donkeys. While we have seen that studies might be progressing in that regard, there appears to be little available data at this time.
4. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the case put forward by the Applicant, the simple fact is, plainly, not all pastoralists value donkeys in the same way the Applicant does. The Applicant has long chartered its own course in this regard but, as we have found, is not doing enough to control the number, distribution and spread of what is a declared pest from the Station.
5. We find that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the Control Notice (including the reporting measures) and to dismiss the Review. The parties should confer and prepare orders in these terms.
6. Orders should also be prepared which address the manner in which the Control Notice will be carried out, by reference to the 'Revised Measures Proposed by the Respondent' which were filed on 15 November 2024 but adjusted to take account of the date of the publication of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

[1] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 29(3).

[4] Ord Irrigation Cooperative Ltd v Department of Water [2018] WASCA 83; (2018) 232 LGERA 331 [115] (the Court).

[5] LS v Mental Health Review Board [2013] WASCA 128 [92] (Murphy JA, Newnes JA agreeing).

[7] BAM Act, s 3(1); Explanatory Memorandum, Biosecurity and Agricultural Management Bill 2006 (WA), page 1.

[9] The Agricultural Protection Board was established pursuant to s 5 of the Agricultural Protection Board Act 1950 (WA) (repealed).

[10] By publication in the Government Gazette.

[11] Prior to the Declaration, the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (Declared Pests) Declaration 2013, published in the Government Gazette on 7 May 2013 (No 74, page 1925) had the effect of making feral donkeys a declared pest.

[14] A 'high impact organism' is a prohibited organism that has been prescribed as a high impact organism.

[15] An 'inspector' is defined in the BAM Act, s 6 to be, relevantly, a person so appointed pursuant to s 162 of the BAM Act.

[18] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39 - 40 (Mason J).

[19] In the context of the LFH Strategy, LFH includes: unowned donkeys, horses (Equus caballus) and the hybrids as well as Arabian (dromedary) camels (Camelus dromedarius).

[20] Respondent's Amended Bundle of Documents (Exhibit 1), page 79.

[27] BAM Act, s 169 provides that the Minister may recognise a biosecurity group. The purposes of such biosecurity groups include controlling declared pests.

[58] Dr Wallach has published academic papers on the potential benefits of donkeys and other LFH. However, she was ultimately not called by the Applicant.

[62] Dr Zabek's reports are found in Volume 4 of Exhibit 1.

[68] A 'salt lick' is either a natural or artificial deposit of salt and other minerals that animals lick for essential nutrients. Salt licks provide essential minerals for herbivores as a source of sodium, calcium, phosphorus and trace elements.

[77] The estimated population of 159 is based on what Dr Zabek regards as a conservative growth rate of 15%; premised on there being 150 donkeys on the Station in 2018. See also: ts 176, 6 November 2024.

[78] Dr Zabek explains that the annual growth rate of a population is not static, but will fluctuate based on inter alia environmental conditions, available resources, the reproductive status of a population, sex ratio, survival rates and control and management actions: Exhibit 10, para 4.2, page 7.

[81] Exhibit 10, section 4.2, pages 9 - 10.

[107] Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2007] NSWCA 164; (2007) 155 LGERA 52 [55(h)]; see also Puma Energy Australia and City of Cockburn [2016] WASAT 36; (2016) 89 SR (WA) 1 [46].

[109] Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 17.

[110] Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 3(1)(c).

[111] ts 38 and ts 50, 5 November 2024.