SUBMISSION 11 Attachment 1
RECEIVED 19/08/2016
INQUIRY INTO THE CONTROL OF INVASIVE ANIMALS ON CROWN LAND.
Please find below the second part of my submission to this inquiry concerning the Dingo/Wild Dog
and also my contact details along with my request for confidentiality of contact details.
Thank you.
THE DINGO AND THE DINGO/WILD DOG.
ORIGON OF THE DINGO AND THE DINGO/WILD DOG
Dingos were the first introduced species in Australia some 5000 years ago by Asian seafarers.
Domestic dogs have been in the Victorian bush and cross breeding with dingos since the early
colonial settlement and gold rush days of Australia in the 1800's. These early pioneers common
urban pet dogs either simply wandered off and/or were abandoned etc and by breeding amongst
themselves and with dingos form the basis of the wild dog of today as we know it.
In recent times there is some limited but negligible cross breeding with farm dogs, the liberation of
pets into the bush by irresponsible owners who can no longer keep their pet but rather than have
them destroyed have abandoned them to fend for themselves. Some will breed and some will be
killed. Some irresponsible hunters have left some dogs in the bush but again the number is
negligible. Hunters invest too much time, money and effort in their dogs to lose them.
THE WILD DOG/DINGO TODAY.
The wild dog/dingo hybrid is supplanting the pure bred dingo as the top order predator in Victoria
just as the dingo replaced the earlier predators such as the Thylacine and Tasmanian Tiger of
Australia.
A top order predator is an essential component of maintaining a healthy and thriving eco system
with beneficial effects on both fauna and flora. An excellent example of this is Yellowstone National
Park in the USA where wolves were extinct but then reintroduced to the Park. Their subsequent
hunting activities reduced the excessive number of elk which in turn reduced the burden on native
fauna which was being over grazed. The wolf hunting the Elk meant that fauna and fauna not only
benefited and regrew from their activity but actually thrived.
Some 5000 years ago the dingo was Australia’s first introduced species but its future is at best
uncertain and at worst dismal due to hybridisation breeding with domestic dogs. While the dingo is
an introduced species, it has been in Australia long enough to become a functional and integral part
of the natural ecological system as a top-order predator.
In one of the great ecological ironies the loss of predators can disadvantage their prey species. Top
end predators are ecosystem shapers and exert control over smaller predators – foxes and wild cats
- and large herbivores – kangaroos and wallabies.. Eliminate the top of the food chain and predators
lower down may flourish to the greater detriment of the smaller prey species whilst the large prey
species will flourish unchecked and over populate.
The Dingo and now the Wild Dog/Dingo is a keystone species protecting mammal biodiversity in
Australia and is the most significant constraint on the destructive power of introduced exotic
predators – cats and foxes. This means that positive management of Dingoes/Wild Dogs should be
seen as an essential element of biodiversity conservation in Australia and given a very high priority
of management as opposed to the current practice of aiming for species elimination.
Foxes and cats have contributed to the extinction of about 20 Australian mammals and threaten the
existence of many more. They are mostly too widespread and costly or difficult to control but in
some areas where dingoes/wild dogs are present fox and cat numbers are low and offer the hope
that conserving dingoes/wild dogs will save native wildlife. Dingoes/Wild Dogs may also help control
feral goats and pigs.
Since colonisation and the establishment of cleared land for farming which was and is now planted
with grasses/crops for domestic stock/human consumption and with the construction of tens of
thousands farm dams for domestic stock and irrigation - meat and crop production - the kangaroo
population has increased exponentially and is now in plague numbers and well exceeds its pre
colonisation numbers by many factors. Due to the accidental introduction of the domestic dog into
the environment in early colonisation the dingo has morphed into a dingo/dog hybrid species known
colloquially as the Wild Dog. Simultaneously to the domestication of the environment farmers and
various governments have waged a long term 'extinction grade' attack on the resident dingo/wild
dog population. This leaves the situation where the dingo/wild dog – a top order predator – has had
its overall numbers reduced.
Eradicating or severely reducing the number of wild dog/dingoes from the ecosystem is contrary to
all environmental requirements for a healthy and thriving native fauna and flora ecosystem.
The introduction of domestic stock – sheep and cattle - to the environment has seen the dingo/wild
dog adapt to the presence of this easy hunting of these species. Apart from killing for food the
dingo/wild dog will engage in killing for fun rather than for food. This is costly on several fronts apart
from the financial loss to the farming community.
There are some statistics missing and are unavailable in any discussion concerning the dingo/wild
dog of Victoria. That is one - the domestic stock kill rate expressed as a percentage of the total
domestic farm stock population – cattle and sheep. Two - the kill rate of kangaroos and swamp
wallabies expressed as a percentage of their total wild population.
Exterminate too many wild dogs/dingos and the various macropod species populations will increase
at an unhindered and prodigious rate. Current experience is that kangaroo numbers are more than
the environment can support and are eating themselves into an ecological desert as well as causing
issues for farmers aka when they graze his grass/crops meant for his stock aka sheep and catle – on
his farm land
Exterminate too few wild dogs/dingoes and the domestic farm stock will suffer repeated
attacks/fatalities with all the associated social, personal, financial losses and emotional trauma
associated with having farm stock killed and maimed.
Exterminate too many wild dogs/dingoes and the wild macropod populations of kangaroos and
swamp wallabies will expand to a point beyond the ability of the land to support them.
There is no doubt that the Wild Dog/Dingo of today is bigger than its ancestors. As a group they are
increasing in size over time which makes them more formidable and more able to successfully tackle
large prey animals. In the future will their increasing size affect their diet which today is they will
consume just about anything to one of large prey only?
Science can not prevent them from growing bigger and better with each generation but it should be
looking at what this might lead to.
It is all a question of balance. Reduce the number of wild dogs/dingos attacking stock on farmland
yet maintaining a sufficient number of wild dogs/dingoes on crown land to ensure the ecological
environment thrives and is not thrown into an ecological disaster with a macropod species over load
population.
Information as to the required population numbers of predator and prey for sustaining ecological
health is necessary when contemplating any management plan. This comes down to research which
is not being done. The government needs to expand its budget for the necessary research to be
undertaken.
THE SUPPOSITION THAT HUNTERS ARE ABANDONING THEIR DOGS ON CROWN LAND.
Hunting dogs aka gun dogs are non aggressive floppy eared breeds of dogs. This includes the Hound
Hunters who hunt deer with hounds such as Beagles and deer stalkers with breeds such as Spaniels,
German Short Haired Pointers, Weimaraners, Irish and Gordon Setters.
Wild dogs are not and haven't been observed with any trace of floppy ears in their make up which
would be expected if cross breeding between hunting dogs and wild dogs/dingos occurred. A
reasonable conclusion is that breeding between wild dogs/dingos and hunting dogs is not occurring.
Hunters spend a lot of time and money on their hunting dogs and do not easily give up on their dogs
if lost or they wander off.
Some of these shooters hunting dogs have suffered terribly in encounters with Wild Dogs and apart
from being mauled and subsequently escaping they have also been killed by them. Apart from just
killing the shooters hunting dogs, straying farm dogs and ordinary domestic pet dogs, because of
what the wild dogs perceive as a threat to their food source, territory, pack position hierarchy,
potential breeding rights or just simple aggression these domestic dogs have at times been found
dead by their owners, mauled and mostly eaten.
WILD DOG/DINGO INTERACTION WITH PEOPLE.
Both dingos and wild dogs can be aggressive towards people - both from my own observations and
other anecdotal evidence from farmers, bush walkers and hunters. One of most the conspicuous
examples of aggression are the Dingos on Fraser Island which have frequently been reported by
main stream media due to aggression towards people. My assertion of aggression from Dingos/Wild
Dogs towards people is well supported by fact.
Here is one of my personal interactions with Wild Dog/Dingos - there have been others. Some years
ago the Border Mail newspaper reported with a main story about one particular experience I had
with three “dingo looking” wild dogs. Whilst out hunting deer on my own – my gun dogs stayed at
home this day - they attacked me one after the other and I shot them at close range of some five to
ten metres one after the other as they attacked.
I believe it to only be a matter of time before a wild dog/dingo or a pack of them attack and maim or
kill a person/s.
THE CONTROL METHODS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED FOR WILD DOG/DINGOES.
The control of wild dogs/dingoes coming onto income generating freehold property is vital to
prevent stock losses and damage to breeding programs due to their attacks.
They cause economic and social distress to farming communities because they injure and kill
livestock causing an estimated A$48.5 million in damage annually.
The methods currently employed are - Poison Baits. Trapping. Shooting.
Poison [1080] Baits.
DELWP and Parks Victoria have baited public land with baits which are target species specific. There
are two different sized/strength 1080 laced poison baits. A smaller bait specificaly for the smaller
weight predator aka foxes and a larger strength concentration bait for the heavier weight wild
dogs/dingoes. A dingo/wild dog eating a fox sized poison bait may very well survive and learn not to
eat baits whereas a fox eating a bait targeted at a wild dog/dingo will succumb and die.
Individual farmers also lay 1080 laced poison baits either themselves or through commercial pest
controller organisations.
In both cases the annual number of poison baits laid each year is unknown.
Of great interest is the much touted success rate of the baiting programs. But how many wild
dogs/dingoes and foxes die each year from ingesting a poison bait? The current bench mark of
poisoning success from DELWP and Parks Victoria seems to be the numerical number of baits laid
and the size of the area covered in baits. Neither is an indication of mortality of the target species
and as such is useless as a management tool when discussing reducing wild dog/dingo/fox numbers
with poison baits. Questions such as the cost effectiveness of baiting programs cannot be answered.
Similarly neither can questions concerning the effectiveness of reducing domestic stock attacks by
laying poison baits. Laying poison baits is basically a 'suck it and see' if it works situation
In the long term the extensive dispersal of poison baits and any subsequent poisoning of wild
dog/dingoes in Victorians bush environments may be doing more long term ecological damage than
we are aware of or can imagine. [see The Wild Dog/Dingo Today above ]
SHOOTING AND TRAPPING CONTROL METHODS.
Shooting.
These can be effective wild dog/dingo management tools when targeted at a specific location and/or
specific problem individual wild dogs/dingoes. Both methods are time consuming and expensive if
the farmer is paying for this work to be done. Farmers do not generally have the skills base, time or
the tools to trap effectively and consistently.
Shooting by the farmers is generally an opportunistic task performed when the farmer is out and
about his property and has a firearm with him when a wild dog/dingo presents itself for a shot to be
taken.
These leaves the recreational hunter as a viable alternative but with one proviso. Not every one can
hunt wild dogs/dingoes successfully but there is small percentage of these recreational hunters who
are stand out performers when it comes to wild dog/dingo hunting. Their skills and knowledge of
dog behaviour is exceptional. The trick is however devising a way to identity who these hunters are
and then getting them to participate in known problem areas. Make no mistake here – there is a
great deal of time and fuel money expended for a capable dingo/wild dog hunter to target and
eliminate particularly troublesome individual dogs or packs of wild dogs/dingoes.
The Victorian State Government previously offered a bounty of $100.00 for killing a wild dog/dingo
but this has been discontinued. In reality although $100.00 sounds good but it doesn’t come any
where near to covering costs let alone turn a profit for the shooter concerned. This bounty should
not only be reinstated but increased in value to serious money levels due to the time and effort
needed to shoot the wild dog/dingo and take the mandatory scalp/tail for identification by DELWP
officers when collecting this bounty.
There are major disincentives for shooters collecting the bounty.
Collecting the bounty when available presents problems for most shooters and costs money. The
collection centres are too few and require a lot of time and fuel to drive to them. The designated
collection times are extremely limited both by frequency and by the hours they are open..
Presenting the skin/tail and collecting the bounty can only be done during business hours. Shooters
have full time jobs too and can't attend the centres.
Implementing the changes I have outlined will attract the serious, skilled, dedicated wild dog/dingo
hunters and with their interest and participation problem areas at the farm/crown land interface will
be specifically targeted by them. This is a plus for all parties involved - the hunter, the farmer, the
Crown Land Manager and the government who will have a good news story about its success in
managing the wild dog/dingo problem. Every one wins!
Trapping.
Crown Land -
It is illegal for anyone but government employees/contractors to trap for wild dogs/dingoes on
Crown Land. With no recreational trapping allowed on Crown Land there is no comment from me re
this.
Private Property -
Recreational trapping of wild dogs/dingoes is a specialised, technical skill. Knowledgeable, skilled
and experienced trappers can be a very effective control method when operating on farm land.
Especially if the layout and stocking of the property prohibits shooting as a management tool.
The recreational trapper does however have to deal with the expense and hassle of collecting his
scalp/tail bounty if there is a bounty on offer. [see shooting above].
ETHICS/MORALS CONCERNING THE USE OF POISON.
Poison is a cruel, barbaric, painful, slow acting control method and in any civilised society such as
ours it must be viewed with abhorrence.
There is also the matter of secondary poisoning of native animals and birds scavenging on any
poisoned carcass. This is a valid concern and bush users have seen and photographed native animals
and birds carcasses along side the carcasses of poisoned and partly devoured carcass.
It is well past time when poisoning should be stopped and replaced with new deterrents/control
methods.
GENERAL
The number of foxes, wild dogs/dingoes at large in the environment is unknown. I am unaware of
any accurate real time data or modelling of their total populations and locations. Neither do I know
of any data measuring breeding rates and the survival success of the progeny. Neither is it known
just what is the correct balance of predator and prey numbers for a thriving ecological environment.
There is a need for new and all encompassing research and for this to be accomplished government
needs to considerably increase research funding, employ suitably qualified researchers and build and
equip suitable facilities to compliment the research.
At the moment there is no all encompassing knowledge of all aspects of the wild dogs/dingoes life
such as lifestyle, population size, home territories, hunting territories, breeding rates, length of life
and natural mortality from age, accident or disease.
It is impossible to successfully deal with the issue of wild dogs/dingos attacking farm stock without
having a complete knowledge of their overall lifestyle and what drives them.
Given that the dingo/wild dog is now the top ecological predator in the Victorian bush environment
it is probable that the laying of poison baits by government departments on crown land is skewing
the natural and desirable balance between predator and prey. That a self sustaining population of
wild dog/dingos is necessary and desirable in order to control over breeding of the large prey species
– kangaroos and wallabies.
It is where crown bush land adjoins with private farm property stocked with domestic animals sheep and cattle - that most problems with wild dogs/dingoes seem to occur.
Perhaps a dedicated and concentrated exclusion zone around the farm boundaries with a
combination of all control methods will mitigate or eliminate wild dog/dingo problems. Reduce the
spending on dingo/wild dog controls on crown land and divert that money to the farmers immediate
needs around his farm boundaries. Such an exclusion zone to be operated on the basis that the farm
land inside the exclusion zone is a no go area for the wild dogs/dingoes. As well as diverting money
the government must look at increasing its funding for these exclusion zones and more research.
Exclusion by dog proof fencing and/or electric fencing is an option but is exorbitantly expensive
which puts it beyond most farmers financial means plus it needs regular patrolling and maintenance.
This leaves trapping, shooting and poisoning as remaining control methods.
What is needed is a long term, cost effective physical deterrent to the wild dogs/dingoes which
prevents them from encroaching on farm land and attacking farm stock. A good analogy of this
deterrent principal is traffic on the roads. When a police car is visible then traffic obeys the road
rules but when no police car is present then the road rules are regularly broken with impunity.
Farmers need the dog equivalent of a patrolling police car.
Research into a viable, cost effective and new technological deterrents needs to be immediately
funded, developed and implemented. Technological deterrence research which is aimed at
developing a visual - laser lights etc, scent - offensive to all canines, noise – both at human hearing
levels and at levels which only canines can hear and react to or a combination of these three to be
an effective deterrent. This new technology should be installed to prevent wild dogs/dingoes from
crossing the exclusion zone.
Without the will to fund new research into new technologies then the battle of wild dogs/dingoes vs
farmers is at a standstill and just repeating itself interminably.
HUNTERS AND DEER CARCASSES - FARMERS AND CATTLE/SHEEP CARCASSES
It is an oft repeated fallacy that hunters shooting deer, taking some venison from the carcass but
leaving the rest to decompose where it was shot are contributing to the wild dog/dingoes by
providing an artificial, sustaining and abundant food source. Similar accusations are often levelled at
farmers for providing an easy food source when he shoots kangaroos under permit or destroys sick
cattle and leaves the carcasses to decompose.
Whether a deer is shot and killed or dies from natural causes or a kangaroo dies from natural causes
the bottom line is their carcasses will be available for scavenging by wild dogs/dingoes. The number
of carcasses over what ever time period does not alter - it remains a constant.. There is no net
increase in the amount of dead meat available from one cause or the other. In fact there may be a
net decrease in meat available due to the deer all being shot in one simultaneous time period aka
winter and all carcasses decomposing simultaneously rather than over the whole year.
In fact it can be argued that because the deer are usually hunted and killed in the winter time that
their carcasses appearing simultaneously as a food source will overwhelm any scavenging predators
intending to take advantage of them. The deer shot by hunters are a short term “boom and bust”
cycle – the majority shot in winter and very few shot in summer.
Deer and kangaroos who die from natural causes, illness, age, disease etc will have their carcasses
appearing over the whole year. There will always be a fresh carcass supply.
Also mitigating against the argument that hunters increase the deer meat supply for scavenging wild
dog/dingoes is that these predators are genetically programmed to hunt and kill live food with
scavenging being an unpopular and scarce activity. Many movement triggered cameras have been
set over deer carcasses to monitor the arrival and activities of any wild dog/dingo which comes to
the carcass. The common theme is that as a general rule the wild dogs/dingos do not feed on the
carcass. They investigate it and move on. Some did eat but not to any great extent.
In Victoria the total wildlife numbers – the kangaroo over population as discussed else where in this
document - available to be hunted by wild dogs will easily feed them. Wild dogs/dingos are
genetically preprogrammed to target live prey rather than eat carrion. Pure bred dingos also kill just
as much as wild dog/hybrids do.
Any argument that hunters killing deer and leaving the carcass or parts of the carcass behind is
increasing the meat supply and thus responsible for increases in wild dog/dingo numbers is totally
erroneous. Such false argument is often used as an emotive tool by those opposed to hunting to
further their own private anti hunting agenda
It is common for farmers to leave their dead stock to decompose at the interface between crown
land and freehold property. The same reasons as outlined above re sambar deer carcasses apply
here. As a general rule the wild dogs/dingoes are not feeding on the carcass.
There are some from the animal liberation/protection camps who accuse farmers of increasing the
wild dog/dingo numbers by leaving their dead carcasses to become a food source but this is a false
argument designed solely to further their own private agendas.
WILD DOG MOVEMENTS AND TERRITORY
There has been some excellent monitoring work being performed on the movements of wild
dogs/dingoes.
Studies have shown that -
Wild dogs generally travel around their home range extensively and frequently. They can be at one
farm one day then at another farm kilometres away the next. The reasons for their constant
wanderings are poorly understood.
They travel in small packs of 2 to 5 animals, on their own or in larger packs. Unknown to them I
witnessed one pack contouring along a deer game trail. I counted some 18 animals give or take a
couple due to vision interference from the thick vegetation. Were they just moving to a new hunting
territory, to another part of an already established home range and why or was such a large pack
tracking a sambar deer with the intention of killing it for food?
Disputes over territory/home range invasion does result in opposing packs fighting each other. What
is not known is at what rate these incidents occur. I was witness to one such fight between two
opposing packs with the fight involving all individuals and lasting some 20 minutes.
Can the funding of new science and technology capitalise on using their propensity to fight, their
territorial ambitions and their territory ownership?
As to wild dog/dingo movements -
*Home ranges varied among individuals from 30 to over 200 km2, with males (124 km2) having
larger home ranges on average than females (45 km2) – male home ranges were three times larger
than females.and both genders preferred sub alpine grassland, shrub or forest.
*One wild dog travelled 230km in 9 days before returning to its home range and another travelled
105km in 87 days. The home-range sizes reported are much larger than previously reported in southeastern Australia.
*One wild dog had unexpected long-range-dispersal movements during winter. A male travelled for
60 km over 3 days before returning to its home range. After a further 30 days he again travelled this
time travelling 230 km over 9 days, before again returning to his home range,
*A female wild dog left her territory in June and travelled for 20 km over 6 days, spending a week at
the new location and then returned to her home range. A second long-range movement then
occurred which saw her travel 105 km over the next 3 months.
* This suggests that the current spatial scale at which wild dog management occurs needs to be reevaluated via more research.
*Wild dogs were recorded more often than expected within 25m of roads and less often than
expected within 25m of watercourses.
*Research has shown that wild dogs/dingoes can travel up to 560kms in 30 days in range land
environments and up to 75kms in a week in forested environments on the Great Dividing Range.
* comments courtesy of Movements and habitat selection by wild dogs in eastern Victoria
Alan Robley, Andrew Gormley, David M. Forsyth, Alan N. Wilton, Danielle Stephens.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment.
CROWN LAND – aka NATIONAL PARKS – LEGISLATION CHANGE NEEDED.
Some Victorian National Parks allow deer hunting by stalking only. Any firearm must be a legal deer
calibre and only to be discharged at a deer.
What this also means is that if the legal recreational deer hunter encounters a wild dog, feral cat,
wild pig, wild goat, fox or rabbit then it is illegal for that hunter to shoot that invasive breed. In
Victorian National Parks they are totally protected.
This needs to change.
The relevant legislation needs to be amended to allow the legal shooting of these non native
invasive species when ever encountered in the National Parks where deer stalking is allowed.
Where deer hunting is not currently allowed in National Parks then the relevant legislation needs to
be amended to allow it and by extension the shooting of all non native invasive species when ever
they are encountered.
•
ENDS.
Note – Confidentiality of contact details is requested as per this below from your website.
Quote Your name will be published with your submission, but your contact details will be removed.
•
Unquote.
Please apply this to my submission..
Thank you.
Dennis Keith.