The state government provided $4.5 million for a four-year program to remove grazing from Warby-Ovens National Park and the other Red Gum parks. Licensees were offered $8 per metre for fencing and $3000 per kilometre to install off-stream water for stock where a license included river frontage. Participation in the rebate scheme was voluntary as was fencing in a practical alignment rather than on property boundaries. Funding and technical support was provided to identify legal boundaries. A long phase-out schedule was developed that recognised the significant impact to licensees and their families.
Farmers grazing illegally (i.e. not holding a grazing license) were not funded and faced compliance action if they did not comply with the changes. Many kilometres of unwanted fencing associated with past grazing practices was also removed as part of the program. In some cases, metal bollards replaced the barbed wire fences allowing native animal movement while preventing illegal vehicle access, rubbish dumping and firewood removal.
· The complexity of the program was acknowledged early and a flexible adaptive approach was taken to deal with assets constructed on public land e.g. a house built on crown land was excised from the park.
· As much as possible, the location of park boundary fencing considered ‘practical boundaries’ with boundary markers used to identify actual boundaries.
· The removal of internal, unwanted fences acted as a deterrent to those graziers who continued to allow their stock to enter the park illegally.
· Park neighbours were generally willing to negotiate to achieve sensible outcomes. While the majority of park neighbours disagreed with the phase-out of grazing, most gave up freehold land (typically 5 - 10 hectares) to enable boundary fencing to be erected above flood zones and ensure its longevity.
· Complex land use changes take substantial time and negotiation to work through issues and impacts. It was important to allow a sufficient period to enable graziers to be able to modify their farming enterprises. This was especially the case for farmers with smaller landholdings that relied more heavily on Crown land for their income.