RECENT estimates of Victoria’s dingo populations have been challenged in a submission calling for the Victorian Government to immediately reinstate legislation continuing management of dingoes on public lands.

The submission from National Wild Dog Action Plan Committee chairman Geoff Power to Victoria’s Minister for Environment Steve Dimopoulos said established peer reviewed, published science should underpin policies.

The submission also said the cancellation of the Order in Council in north-west Victoria, ending the wild dog unprotection buffer in public lands, is based on weak evidence and inappropriate use of poor science.

Recent changes to wild dog/dingo control in the north-west are based on genetic work that led to assessments that most Victorian ‘wild dogs’ are dingoes with little hybridisation with domestic dogs, contrary to the observations of landholders. DEECA camera surveys and modelling has estimated the eastern Victorian dingo population at 4900, within a (90pc credible interval) range of 2640-8880 animals. Dingo abundance in the Big Desert/Wyperfeld National Park in the north-west is estimated to be 110 within a (90pc credible interval) range of 40-230 animals.

The NWDAP submission said the recent research findings do not support large scale policy change particularly when those policy changes will cause significant harm to livestock producers, rural communities and the state’s economy.

Mr Power’s submission said Victoria Agriculture Minister Ros Spence justified the decision to end the in the north-west on the basis that there were only 10-68 sheep killed in the region over the past five years and that impacts on livestock production can be managed through an Authority to Control wildlife.

“Since the unprotection order was revoked, the National Wild Dog Coordinator has been made aware of over 200 sheep being killed across at least six properties.

“That’s three times the stock losses for the 2022-23 financial year in just seven months.”

Mr Power said although the Victorian Government claimed the north-west dingo population is in decline and needs to be protected so the population can increase, “it (the government) cannot know what the population should be because density estimates for the region have not been done, although identified as a key activity in the Dingo Action Statement.”

Mr Power said Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action representatives could not clearly articulate what the population was, if it’s in decline, or what population abundance they wanted to see in the park, “which clearly shows this was a poorly thought-out proposal with limited scientific justification.”

The NWDAP submission said the Victorian Government appears to have used data from only a select couple of National Parks, and poorly analysed that data, violating statistical assumptions, undermining any confidence that should be placed in the results. The Victorian Government analyses did not include any sampling, modelling or other estimates of dingo abundance in National Parks north of the Mallee Highway.

“There are publicly available records of dingoes in these areas of habitat, and it should be included in the Victorian population abundance data and monitored accordingly.

“Similarly, the data does not include reports of dingo abundance in contiguous National Parks and private properties in South Australia where park rangers regard dingo sightings as “common”, the submission said.

“Without comprehensive and defendable data, the snap policy decision made by the Victorian Government in the NW is baseless and deceptive, with unjustifiable impacts on the lives of Victorian livestock producers and the rural communities in the north-west.

“The cancellation of the Order in Council in the NW, and suggestions of its removal in the east, appears to be politically motivated and based on weak scientific evidence.”

Eastern Victorian dingo estimate ‘a gross underestimation’

Mr Power’s submission also questioned the dingo population estimates for eastern Victoria and said the use of camera traps set up for deer monitoring was not considered appropriate for wild dog/dingo monitoring.

“First and foremost, the locations where cameras were placed including bogs, wallows and gullies, are not that same areas in the landscape that dingoes and wild dogs use.

“Research to date has shown that to capture dogs on cameras traps, they’re best located on fire trails and ridge lines.”

Mr Power’s submission said the way the cameras were set up for deer, including their height and trigger distances, may have resulted in failed or missed photo opportunities, as the dogs being much smaller than deer would not have triggered the cameras as they were under the detection zone.

“The Victorian Government’s estimates based on cameras traps for deer monitoring are considered a gross underestimate by key stakeholders, neighbouring landholders and researchers.

“Only the most reliable science should underpin land management policies which impact people’s lives and livelihoods, and in this case, both are being lost as a result of the Victorian Government’s snap decision in the NW and are being put at risk in eastern Australia if the unprotection order is removed.”

The submission said the haphazard use of inappropriate survey methods due to the unrealistic timeframes imposed by government to obtain ecological data has resulted in a lack of confidence in the process and a scepticism from landholders and key stakeholders that the entire review is politically motivated and based on long-term ecological evidence.

Rural communities are awaiting the government’s decision by October 1 on whether to also rescind the Order In Council, potentially eliminating dingo unprotection buffers in eastern Victoria. However, in the submission, the NWDAP and other stakeholders have called on the Victorian Government to immediately reinstate the Order in Council across the state, “allowing livestock producers to protect their livestock, and commit to a fulsome, honest, transparent and inclusive review of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of any proposed wild dog policy changes in Victoria.”

Deer cameras inappropriate to count dogs

The NWDAP submission to Mr Dimopoulos followed the annual meeting of the National Wild Dog Action Plan Coordination Committee in Canberra on 10 and 11 September, when it met with Australian Capital Territory and Victorian Government representatives. The ACT is looking to identify dingoes as wildlife under its Nature Conservation Act rather than as a pest animal, although the territory government has a regulatory instrument that allows it to declare a wildlife species as suitable for control under a management plan.

However, NWDAP co-ordinator Greg Mifsud said the ACT’s Minister for Environment and Agriculture Rebecca Vassarotti has given a commitment to landholders that the statutory change in recognition would not result in any change in management of dingoes in the territory.

Mr Mifsud said there are significant concerns among committee members around the science underpinning potential management changes in Victoria, particularly the use of deer cameras and the analysis of data collected in assessing dingo populations.

Mr Mifsud the committee also raised concerns about the timing of the Victorian Government’s recent public consultation on dingo management only weeks from 1 October.

“It’s unacceptable and actually contradicts the Victorian Government’s public engagement policies around the timeframes for management from consultation.”

Mr Mifsud said the concerns about Victoria’s changing position on wild dog management is concerning landholders nationally.

“Why is Victoria looking at its dingo population, particularly in eastern Victoria, in isolation of the rest of the country?

“Because we know that they are the same species, that they don’t stop at boundaries, and we know from other genetic work that clearly shows there are dogs as far north as Grafton and Armidale that have shared genetics with some of the dogs in east Gippsland.”

Mr Mifsud said the Victorian Government has suggested that the north-west dingo population is inbred and at risk of extinction, but he attributed this to adaptation and speciation, “and they’re still there.”

“They’ve been genetically isolated from the rest of the country for possibly 150-200 years, from when the country began to be developed for agriculture.

“The dogs that survived there have changed in their morphology and behaviour to suit the landscape,” he said.

“The low density of the north-west population could be just due to the carrying capacity of the area, nothing to do with inbreeding; it’s got more to do with habitat and food availability.

“They are confounding what is actually happening with this argument about having more dingoes in the landscape.”

Mr Mifsud said if the north-west dingoes were unique, consideration of introducing new dingoes into the north-west population to increase genetic diversity is contradictory and defied logic.

Mr Mifsud, supported by farmers and the Mallee and Yanac-Broughton Landcare groups, has suggested the Victorian Government use radio collars to monitor dingo movements in and around the north-west’s Big Desert National Park to gain information on the behaviour, numbers and ecology.

Wild dog control concerns cross borders

NWDAP Co-ordination Committee chairman and South Australian wool grower Geoff Power said the meeting showed the collective will of industry and government to minimise the impact of wild dogs on livestock and ecosystems. The committee reaffirmed its commitment to the sustainable and effective management of wild dog impacts across Australia.

“Over the two days, the committee discussed the importance of staying true to the objectives of the National Wild Dog Action Plan, coordinating a unified response to managing wild dog populations, balancing both conservation and agricultural interests, ensuring sustainable practices across Australia.”

Mr Power said producers are understandably worried about the future of livestock production if wild dog control measures are rolled back.

“These concerns extend beyond borders – wild dogs don’t respect state lines – so if one state, such as Victoria, pares back its wild dog control program, other states will also be impacted.”

Committee member and Tallangatta farmer Peter Star said his property is five kilometres from public land, but if the Victorian Government lifted the unprotection order, in one to two years he would have wild dogs on his property.

“I will need to implement costly and often ineffective measures to protect my livestock – not to mention the suffering of attacked livestock.”

Cattle Australia representative and a North-Queensland cattle producer Lloyd Hick said he had been farming for over 40 years and wild dog numbers were the greatest he had seen.

“We’re the ones on the front-line and it’s essential our voices are heard when reviewing any wild dog management approaches.”

The final outcome of the two-day meeting was for the committee to remain committed to ensuring the principles of the nationally agreed plan on wild dog management are upheld; the promotion of evidence-based, best practice tools and methods aimed at protecting agriculture, the environment and community wellbeing.

Nationals member calls out dingo estimates

After attending dingo management consultation sessions at Omeo and Gelantipy recently, Nationals Member for Gippsland Tim Bull said the Victorian Government “is determining the future of a program based on assessments of wild dog/dingo numbers that are clearly wrong and from an assessment program that did not focus on this species and had cameras located in areas they do not frequent.”

Mr Bull said based on estimates of dogs killed by doggers, baiting and farmers, it is conservatively estimated 1500 wild dogs/dingoes are killed each year in eastern Victoria.

“However, the department tells us there is a total population of 5000 and a maximum of 8000.

“On the 5000 figure it would mean 30pc of the entire dog population is taken each year from just the buffer zone and private land,” he said.

“On the upper figure of 8000, it is suggesting 20pc of the entire population of wild dogs/dingoes are taken from the buffer zone private land annually.

“To suggest 20-30pc of the total population of wild dogs/dingoes are removed every year from just the limited 3km buffer zone and private property is simply not believable or realistic,” Mr Bull said.

Mr Bull said the meetings were told 357 cameras located in the bush with deer control program funding — but not on tracks and trails –record 32 wild dogs/dingoes in the east. That data was then extrapolated to calculate a population estimate.

“So we have a figure based on recordings from camera locations that were not focussed on areas where wild dogs/dingoes frequent and was not specific to this species.

“The point was made that the number of wild dogs/dogs being caught and stock kills show they species is not in decline and there is evidence to say they are increasing in number, litter sizes and survival rates.”