ON MARCH 14 the unprotection order for dingoes in the northwest of the state was revoked, and with no government commitment as to whether the Wild Dog Control Program will be renewed after its current term ends on October 1, farmers across the North East are concerned.
The revoked order was triggered by research conducted by the Arthur Rylah Institute suggesting the dingo population in the northwest of Victoria is at imminent risk of extinction if threats to the population are not addressed.
A spokesperson for the Victorian government said “we are currently undertaking a comprehensive assessment of Victoria’s dingo population to guide management practices that most appropriately balance the protection of livestock and the conservation of dingoes".
Defined as both a native animal and an agricultural pest, along with holding cultural significance for First Nations people, the challenge now lies in finding that balance.
In Victoria, dingoes are listed as a threatened species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and are protected under the Wildlife Act 1975.
Latest Stories
However, there are allowances.
Currently the Wild Dog Control Program allows the control of dingoes where they threaten livestock, with wild dogs declared unprotected within a 3km Livestock Protection Buffer zone on public land in eastern Victoria, and on most private land across the state.
This is under review, with the government assessing future policy for dingo conservation and management in light of new scientific research suggesting a significantly greater proportion of Victoria’s wild dogs or dingo-dog hybrids may in fact be purebred dingoes.
Members of the North East Wild Dog Action Group are skeptical that any promised consultation with farmers and other stakeholders will eventuate.
The group is also requesting that any data on wild dog populations in the Victorian high country and surrounding areas be made publicly available and placed on the table for discussion.
“We are very concerned and fear the lack of support from our state government will see the program closed, possibly overnight and before the October 1 deadline as happened in the north-west,” group member Libbe Paton said.
“This snap decision now protects dingoes on both public and private land, leaving sheep and cattle producers unable to protect their own livestock.”
Where dingoes threaten livestock in the north-west, farmers must now apply for an Authority to Control Wildlife to use lethal control in circumstances where no other options are available.
The committee is also dubious of recent research used to inform the government’s new policy of dingo protection.
“The study claims that 87 per cent of all wild dogs in Victoria are purebred dingoes compared with previous data showing one to three per cent were pure dingo,” Ms Paton said.
A further 6.5 per cent of the sample were identified as backcrosses with more than 93 per cent dingo ancestry.
“This study was based on only 62 dog samples of questionable origin in Victoria and was funded by the Dingo Conservation Foundation,” Ms Paton said.
The nationwide study identified four genetically separate wild dingo populations that had previously been misidentified.
Researchers now believe the vast majority of wild canines are in fact pure dingoes and are calling on the removal of the term ‘wild dog’ from the lexicon, with the misnomer allowing animals to be target for eradication.
The term ‘wild dog’ currently identifies “any dog living in the wild including, including feral domestic dogs, dingoes and their hybrids”.
All are considered invasive species and subject to lethal control measures, including within the perimeter of conservation areas like National Parks where native animals are protected.
Legislation has been determined by the belief that interbreeding between dogs and dingoes was widespread, and the resulting hybrids were the main issue.
However recent DNA research shows dingo-dog hybrids are rare, with most dingoes having little to no dog ancestry.
This has led to scientists, conservationists and First Nations people demanding a change to dingo policies and calling for acknowledgment of the species as an apex predator that serves an important role within the environment.
Farmers are concerned that any changes to policy will find themselves on the wrong side of the law, forced to choose between protecting their flock or risk fines and court cases shooting a protected species.
Nationals MP for Ovens Valley Tim McCurdy is demanding assurance from the government that producers will be able to protect their livestock long term by keeping wild dog populations in check.
"The government refuses to provide long-term security and instead keep extending the Wild Dog Control Program in six-month blocks to appease inner-city voters who have no idea the damage these creatures do," said Mr McCurdy.
"I can assure farmers we will continue fighting for them so they can continue to protect their livestock and livelihoods."
The National Wild Dog Action Plan is Australia’s blueprint strategy for wild dog management that guides state, regional and local plans in accordance with the principles of the Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-2027.
Greg Mifsud, the National Wild Dog Management coordinator believes if the Victorian Government ends the Wild Dog Control Program, there will be serious and far-reaching implications for Victoria’s wildlife, the economy and its biodiversity.
“Changes to the program would put at risk the state’s $4.5 billion sheep and wool industry and the 9,200 jobs that it provides for rural Victorian residents," said Mr Mifsud.
“Sheep and wool producers would be almost powerless to protect the welfare of their animals from wild dog attacks, which raises important questions about how we prioritise the welfare of one animal over another.
“There’s also a substantial emotional toll on producers when they experience attacks on their livestock, so it is likely we would see an increasing level of stress and impacts to producer wellbeing if the Wild Dog Control Program is changed.
“The Victorian government has a strategy for an agriculture sector that is strong, innovative and sustainable.
“One of the aims of the strategy was to make Victorian agriculture an engine of growth for the state’s economy: attracting investment, supporting jobs and helping communities thrive.
“It will be challenging to achieve this goal if wild dogs are allowed to run rampant across the state.”
Mr Mifsud said there is very limited publicly available information on the actual number of wild dogs in Victoria.
“The only information available is the number of wild dogs trapped by the wild dog control program,” he said.
“Since 2017 numbers have remained relatively constant between 500 and 630 trapped per year.
“This is in addition to those that are aerial and ground baited in the livestock protection zone, of which we have no figures for.”
Mr Mifsud believes that available data indicates the population of dingoes in the 2.6 million hectares of public lands where no control occurs is in fact healthy and sustainable.
“Industry doesn’t want to eradicate dingoes, just control their numbers,” he said.
“The wild dog control program allows us to strike a balance between dingo conservation, the growth of the livestock industry and the protection of Victoria’s biodiversity.
“Whilst we acknowledge the environmental and cultural significance of the dingo, legislative mechanisms like the unprotection order are critical to ensure livestock, wildlife and domestic pets are protected.”
Dr Matt Mahoney of Agridome Consultancy coordinated the three-year ‘Less Predators, More Lambs’ project.
Funded by Meat and Livestock Australia and supported by the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions along with the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, eight sheep producers primarily within the Goulburn Broken catchment participated in the program.
Over the time-period, producers observed a clear impact from predators, with the project estimating that improved predator management would benefit the entire region.
“The core producers experienced substantial losses due to wild dog attacks during the project,” said Dr Mahoney.
“These attacks did only affect a small proportion of the group, however despite their infrequency, when these attacks did occur, they proved devastating to the ewe flock concerned.
“Looking ahead the project highlighted the need for further investment and focus on wild dog management, as this remains a significant issue for producers.”
