Dingo Protection - 2022 Federal Election

THE ISSUE

Federal, state and territory governments are failing to protect dingoes.

Current policies are unduly influenced by sheep and cattle producers, industry representative bodies, pesticide companies and other industry interests.

Our elected representatives must ensure dingoes are protected and able to play their key role as ecosystem regulators.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Why care about dingoes?

Dingoes are a majestic, keystone native Australian species.

Dingoes are estimated to have arrived in Australia between 4,000 and 18,000 years ago (1).

The dingo is recognised as a native Australian species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 section 528 ...

THE ISSUE

Federal, state and territory governments are failing to protect dingoes.

Current policies are unduly influenced by sheep and cattle producers, industry representative bodies, pesticide companies and other industry interests.

Our elected representatives must ensure dingoes are protected and able to play their key role as ecosystem regulators.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Why care about dingoes?

Dingoes are a majestic, keystone native Australian species.

Dingoes are estimated to have arrived in Australia between 4,000 and 18,000 years ago (1).

The dingo is recognised as a native Australian species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 section 528 which defines a native species as one that was present in Australia before the year 1400 (2).

Dingoes have many physical and behavioural features that distinguish them from other canids. These features allow them to survive in challenging Australian environments (3).

Cultural importance

Dingoes have been incorporated into Aboriginal society. They are widely recognised as part of creation, “dreaming” knowledge and law (4, 5).

Dingoes are valued globally as an iconic Australian species.

Champions of biodiversity

As a native apex predator dingoes play a critical role in ecosystem resilience and stability (6-10). Their role includes:

Picking off old, sick and genetically weak individuals, slowing the spread of disease and ensuring healthy populations of their prey species.
Preying on both introduced and native herbivores, regulating the number of kangaroos, rabbits, feral pigs etc resulting in improved vegetation cover.
Keeping foxes and feral cats in check, which in turn gives life to many small-medium mammals, marsupials, native birds and other species.

Dingoes – What is in a Name?

The taxonomic status of dingoes is political and contentious. Science is proving that dingoes are a distinct species (Canis dingo) – genetically, behaviourally, morphologically (10) - and yet vested interests promote them as ‘wild dogs’, ‘pests’ or ‘feral’ domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) to justify lethal control (11, 12).

A major recent study of public understandings found that most people (over 80%) were not aware that the targets of “wild dog” management included dingoes. Most respondents considered dingoes native to Australia (over 80%) and there was low level of approval of lethal control of dingoes (13).

Failure to recognise dingoes as a separate species, misinformation that they are an ‘introduced’ species and / or exaggerated claims of hybridisation with domestic dogs diminishes their critical role as Australia’s native apex land predators

This mess of terminology is misleading and confusing. Language and classifications used by government should be supported by independent scientists, not dictated by industry / industry affiliated ‘experts’.

Threats to dingoes

Dingoes may prey upon sheep and, sometimes, cattle especially if the stock are weak or there is a lack of other prey (increased stock predation has been associated with poor husbandry practices and biodiversity destruction) (14).

In response to perceived risks to stock, dingoes are being killed on an industrial scale across Australia through widespread ‘lethal control’ under the National Wild Dog Action Plan (15). Methods include trapping, shooting and, most commonly poisoning, including aerial dropping of 1080. The RSPCA does not regard 1080 or traps as humane. Traps laced with strychnine cloths are especially cruel (16, 17).

However, the scale of threat posed by dingoes to the wool and meat livestock industries is small. For example, in New South Wales and Victoria annual sheep losses are reported as less than 0.01% of the total flock. ‘Wild dog’ predation accounts for only a fraction of this (18). Research conducted in central and Northern Australia has shown lethal control of dingoes does not reduce cattle production impacts (19, 20). A growing number of producers are reporting that dingoes can be valuable partners in agriculture (21).

Federal legislative protection for dingoes

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's principal piece of environment legislation (2).

The EPBC Act aims to protect Australia's native species and ecological communities by providing for:

Identification and listing of species as threatened
Recognition of key threatening processes

The dingo has been frequently nominated for protection under the EPBC Act as a threatened species and dingo loss as a key threatening process, due to the cascading effects of the loss or removal of dingoes from Australian landscapes (22, 23)

In 2017 the Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommended that dingo loss be included in the proposed priority assessment list for key threatening processes. This decision was rejected by the then Environment Minister and was consequently excluded from consideration thereafter (23).

Federal regulation of threats to Dingoes

The National Wild Dog Action Plan

Australia’s Framework for dingo management is the ‘National Wild Dog Action Plan’ (The Plan). This Plan is extremely dangerous for dingoes’ survival as a species.

The Plan is a "livestock industry-driven initiative". The copyright for the Plan is held by © 2020 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. It unabashedly represents the interests of meat livestock, wool and pesticide industry operators over the interests of the environment, culture and dingoes (15).

WHAT IS NEEDED FROM GOVERNMENTS

We need our representatives to step up and lead the response to this threat

1. Use the taxon Canis Dingo and term dingo, not ‘wild dog’, when communicating with stakeholders, so that it is clear what animal is being targeted / killed.

2. Lobby the Federal Minister for the Environment to approve nomination for dingo loss as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act.

3. Abandon the current National Wild Dog Action Plan and produce a new framework that prioritises the perspectives of Aboriginal people, independent ecologists and the general public.

4. Take responsibility for decisions about dingoes’ future away from industry organisations with a vested interest in current management techniques and profits over public interests

5. Ban cruel and indiscriminate use of 1080 and strychnine poison in all states and territories

6. Invest in research and pilot programs for non-lethal livestock protection methods with a view to developing long term, sustainable strategies for dingoes and livestock to safely co-exist within the Australian landscape.

REFERENCES

1. Philip, J. (2017). The Cultural History of the Dingo https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2017/08/cultural-history-of-the-dingo/

2. Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00777

3. Browning, M., Watson, L., Cairns, K. (2021) Dingoes: Champions of Biodiversity, Australian Deer, Volume 46, Number 4 (2021)

4. Philip, Justine. (2020). The Waterfinders. A Cultural History Of The Australian Dingo. Australian Zoologist. 10.7882/AZ.2020.034

5. Phelan, S.(2007) Conducting Dog Health Programs In Indigenous Communities: A Veterinary Guide https://mk0amrricqek1rx8x5cc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Conducting_dog_health_programs_june-08.pdf

6. Schroeder, T., Lewis, M. M, Kilpatrick, A. D., Moseby, K. E. (2015) Dingo Interactions with Mesopredators: Spatiotemporal Dynamics in an Australian Arid-Zone Study, Wildlife Research 42(6), 529-539, (9 November 2015) https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/WR15104

7. Newsome, T. Greenville, A. Ćirović, D. et al. (2017) Top Predators Constrain Mesopredator Distributions. Nature Communications 8, 15469. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15469

8. Fisher, Adrian. Mills, Charlotte. Lyons, Mitchell. Cornwell, William. Letnic, Mike (2021) Remote Sensing Of Trophic Cascades: Multi‐Temporal Landsat Imagery Reveals Vegetation Change Driven By The Removal Of An Apex Predator. Landscape Ecol 36, 1341–1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01206-w

9. Wallach, A. (2011) Reviving Ecological Functioning With Dingo Restoration https://www.academia.edu/2069055/Reviving_Ecological_Functioning_with_Dingo_Restoration

10. Smith B.P., Cairns K.M., Adams J.W., Newsome T.M., Fillios M., Déaux E.C., Parr W.C.H., Letnic M., van Eeden L.M., Appleby R.G., Bradshaw C.J.A., Savolainen P., Ritchie E.G., Nimmo D.G., Archer-Lean C., Greenville A.C., Dickman C.R., Watson L., Moseby K.E., Doherty T.S., Wallach A.D., Morrant D.S., Crowther M.S.. Taxonomic Status Of The Australian Dingo: The Case For Canis Dingo Meyer, 1793. Zootaxa. 2019 Mar 4;4564(1):zootaxa.4564.1.6. https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4564.1.6

11. Kreplins T. L., Gaynor A., Kennedy M. S., Baudains C. M., Adams P., Bateman P. W., Fleming P. A. (2018) What To Call A Dog? A Review Of The Common Names For Australian Free-Ranging Dogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 25, 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18018

12. Farm Online 98 9ce4 https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/7193342/debate-over-dingo-versus-wild-dog-does-the-name-matter/

13. van Eeden, L. M., Crowther M. S., Dickman C. R., Newsome T.M. Wicked “wild dogs”: Australian public awareness of and attitudes towards dingoes and dingo management Australian Zoologist (2021) 41 (3): 467–479.

14. Arian D. Wallach, Daniel Ramp, Adam J. O’Neill, Cattle Mortality On A Predator-Friendly Station In Central Australia, Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 98, Issue 1, 8 February 2017, Pages 45–52, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw156

15. Australian Wool Innovation Ltd (2020) National Wild Dog Action Plan 2020 - 2030: Promoting and supporting community-driven action for landscape-scale wild dog management © 2020 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd, all rights reserved.

16. RSPCA What is the RSPCA’s view on using 1080 for pest animal control? https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-rspcas-view-on-using-1080-for-pest-animal-control/

17. RSPCA View on the trapping of wild dogs https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-rspcas-view-on-the-trapping-of-wild-dogs/

18. https://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/dingos-devouring-australias-sheep-industry/#:~:text=According%20to%20Lyn%20Watson%2C%20the,sheep%20producing%20states%20near%20Queensland

19. Johnson, Chris & Wallach, Arian. (2016). The Virtuous Circle: Predator-Friendly Farming And Ecological Restoration In Australia. Restoration Ecology. 24. 10.1111/rec.12396.

20. Edwards G. P., Eldridge S. R., Shakeshaft B. J., Nano T. (2021) Lethal Control Reduces the Relative Abundance of Dingoes but Not Cattle Production Impacts. Wildlife Research https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20076

21. Landholders for Dingoes https://landholdersfordingoes.org/

22. Australian Government Key threatening process nominations not prioritised for assessment https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/ktp-not-prioritised-assessment

23. Australian Government Species nominations not prioritised for assessment https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/species-not-prioritised-assessment

.

+

Protect Dingoes

768 emails sent

Email your government representatives. Ask them to protect dingoes!

Find your local rep

Subject:

Federal, state and territory governments are failing to protect dingoes.

At present the fate of dingoes is decided by sheep and cattle producers, industry representative bodies, pesticide companies and other industry interests. They do not represent my interests.

I respectfully call on you to:

1.     Use the taxon Canis dingo and term dingo, not ‘wild dog’, when communicating with stakeholders, so that it is clear what animal is being targeted / killed.

2.     Lobby the Minister for the Environment to approve nomination for dingo loss as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act.

3.     Abandon the current National Wild Dog Action Plan and produce a new framework that prioritises the perspectives of Aboriginal people, independent ecologists and the general public.

4.     Take responsibility for decisions about dingoes’ future away from industry organisations with a vested interest in current management techniques and profits over public interests

5.     Ban cruel and indiscriminate use of 1080 and strychnine poison in Australia.

6.     Invest in research and pilot programs for non-lethal livestock protection methods with a view to developing long term, sustainable strategies for dingoes and livestock to safely co-exist within the Australian landscape.

REASONS FOR MY REQUEST

Dingoes are a majestic, keystone native Australian species.

The dingo is recognised as a native Australian species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 section 528 which defines a native species as one that was present in Australia before the year 1400 (2).

Dingoes have many physical and behavioural features that distinguish them from other canids. These features allow them to survive in challenging Australian environments (3).

Dingoes have been incorporated into Aboriginal society.  They are widely recognised as part of creation, “dreaming” knowledge and law (4, 5).

Dingoes are valued globally as an iconic Australian species.

As a native apex predator dingoes play a critical role in ecosystem resilience and stability (6-10).  Their role includes:
- Picking off old, sick and genetically weak individuals, slowing the spread of disease and ensuring healthy populations of their prey species.
- Preying on both introduced and native herbivores, regulating the number of kangaroos, rabbits, feral pigs etc resulting in improved vegetation cover.
- Keeping foxes and feral cats in check, which in turn gives life to many small-medium mammals, marsupials, native birds and other species.

The taxonomic status of dingoes is political and contentious. Science is proving that dingoes are a distinct species (Canis dingo) – genetically, behaviourally, morphologically (10) - and yet vested interests promote them as ‘wild dogs’, ‘pests’ or ‘feral’ domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) to justify lethal control (11, 12).  A major recent study of public understandings found that most people (over 80%) were not aware that the targets of “wild dog” management included dingoes.  Most respondents considered dingoes native to Australia (over 80%) and there was low level of approval of lethal control of dingoes (13).

Failure to recognise dingoes as a separate species, misinformation that they are an ‘introduced’ species and / or exaggerated claims of hybridisation with domestic dogs diminishes their critical role as Australia’s native apex land predators

This mess of terminology is misleading and confusing.  Language and classifications used by government should be supported by independent scientists, not dictated by industry / industry affiliated ‘experts’.

Dingoes may prey upon sheep and, sometimes, cattle especially if the stock are weak or there is a lack of other prey (increased stock predation has been associated with poor husbandry practices and biodiversity destruction) (14).

In response to perceived risks to stock, dingoes are being killed on an industrial scale across Australia through widespread ‘lethal control’ under the National Wild Dog Action Plan (15).  Methods include trapping, shooting and, most commonly poisoning, including aerial dropping of 1080.  The RSPCA does not regard 1080 or traps as humane.  Traps incorporating strychnine laced clothes are considered to be especially cruel (16, 17).

However, the real scale of threat posed by dingoes to the wool and meat livestock industries is small.  For example, in New South Wales and Victoria annual sheep losses are reported as less than 0.01% of the total flock. ‘Wild dog’ predation accounts for only a fraction of this (18). Research conducted in central and Northern Australia has shown lethal control of dingoes does not reduce cattle production impacts (19, 20). A growing number of producers are reporting that dingoes can be valuable partners in agriculture (21).

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's principal piece of environment legislation (2).

The EPBC Act aims to protect Australia's native species and ecological communities by providing for:

- Identification and listing of species as threatened
- Recognition of key threatening processes 
- The dingo has been frequently nominated for protection under the EPBC Act as a threatened species and dingo loss as a key threatening process, due to the cascading effects of the loss or removal of dingoes from Australian landscapes (22, 23)

In 2017 the Threatened Species Scientific Committee recommended that dingo loss be included in the proposed priority assessment list for key threatening processes.  This decision was rejected by the then Environment Minister and was consequently excluded from consideration thereafter (23).

Australia’s Framework for dingo management is the ‘National Wild Dog Action Plan’ (The Plan). This Plan is extremely dangerous for dingoes’ survival as a species.

The Plan is a "livestock industry-driven initiative". The copyright for the Plan is held by © 2020 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd.   It unabashedly represents the interests of meat livestock, wool and pesticide industry operators over the interests of the environment, culture and dingoes (15).

REFERENCES

1.     Philip, J. (2017).  The Cultural History of the Dingo https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2017/08/cultural-history-of-the-dingo/

2.     Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999  https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00777

3.     Browning, M., Watson, L., Cairns, K. (2021) Dingoes: Champions of Biodiversity, Australian Deer, Volume 46, Number 4 (2021)

4.     Philip, Justine. (2020). The Waterfinders. A Cultural History Of The Australian Dingo. Australian Zoologist. 10.7882/AZ.2020.034

5.     Phelan, S.(2007) Conducting Dog Health Programs In Indigenous Communities: A Veterinary Guide https://mk0amrricqek1rx8x5cc.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Conducting_dog_health_programs_june-08.pdf

6.     Schroeder, T., Lewis, M. M, Kilpatrick, A. D., Moseby, K. E. (2015) Dingo Interactions with Mesopredators: Spatiotemporal Dynamics in an Australian Arid-Zone Study, Wildlife Research 42(6), 529-539, (9 November 2015) https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/WR15104

7.     Newsome, T. Greenville, A. Ćirović, D. et al. (2017) Top Predators Constrain Mesopredator Distributions. Nature Communications 8, 15469. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15469

8.     Fisher, Adrian. Mills, Charlotte. Lyons, Mitchell. Cornwell, William. Letnic, Mike (2021) Remote Sensing Of Trophic Cascades: Multi‐Temporal Landsat Imagery Reveals Vegetation Change Driven By The Removal Of An Apex Predator. Landscape Ecol 36, 1341–1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01206-w

9.     Wallach, A. (2011) Reviving Ecological Functioning With Dingo Restoration https://www.academia.edu/2069055/Reviving_Ecological_Functioning_with_Dingo_Restoration

10.  Smith B.P., Cairns K.M., Adams J.W., Newsome T.M., Fillios M., Déaux E.C., Parr W.C.H., Letnic M., van Eeden L.M., Appleby R.G., Bradshaw C.J.A., Savolainen P., Ritchie E.G., Nimmo D.G., Archer-Lean C., Greenville A.C., Dickman C.R., Watson L., Moseby K.E., Doherty T.S., Wallach A.D., Morrant D.S., Crowther M.S.. Taxonomic Status Of The Australian Dingo: The Case For Canis Dingo Meyer, 1793. Zootaxa. 2019 Mar 4;4564(1):zootaxa.4564.1.6. https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4564.1.6

11.  Kreplins T. L., Gaynor A., Kennedy M. S., Baudains C. M., Adams P., Bateman P. W., Fleming P. A. (2018) What To Call A Dog? A Review Of The Common Names For Australian Free-Ranging Dogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 25, 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC18018

12.  Farm Online 98 9ce4  https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/7193342/debate-over-dingo-versus-wild-dog-does-the-name-matter/

13.  van Eeden, L. M., Crowther M. S., Dickman C. R., Newsome T.M. Wicked “wild dogs”: Australian public awareness of and attitudes towards dingoes and dingo management  Australian Zoologist (2021) 41 (3): 467–479.

14.  Arian D. Wallach, Daniel Ramp, Adam J. O’Neill, Cattle Mortality On A Predator-Friendly Station In Central Australia, Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 98, Issue 1, 8 February 2017, Pages 45–52, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw156

15.  Australian Wool Innovation Ltd (2020) National Wild Dog Action Plan 2020 - 2030: Promoting and supporting community-driven action for landscape-scale wild dog management © 2020 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd, all rights reserved.

16.  RSPCA What is the RSPCA’s view on using 1080 for pest animal control? https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-rspcas-view-on-using-1080-for-pest-animal-control/

17.  RSPCA View on the trapping of wild dogs https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-rspcas-view-on-the-trapping-of-wild-dogs/

18.  https://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/dingos-devouring-australias-sheep-industry/#:~:text=According%20to%20Lyn%20Watson%2C%20the,sheep%20producing%20states%20near%20Queensland

19.  Johnson, Chris & Wallach, Arian. (2016). The Virtuous Circle: Predator-Friendly Farming And Ecological Restoration In Australia. Restoration Ecology. 24. 10.1111/rec.12396.

20.  Edwards G. P., Eldridge S. R., Shakeshaft B. J., Nano T. (2021) Lethal Control Reduces the Relative Abundance of Dingoes but Not Cattle Production Impacts. Wildlife Research https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20076

21.  Landholders for Dingoes https://landholdersfordingoes.org/

22.  Australian Government Key threatening process nominations not prioritised for assessment https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/ktp-not-prioritised-assessment

23.  Australian Government Species nominations not prioritised for assessment https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/species-not-prioritised-assessment

How we use the data you enter on this form

Do Gooder (the advocacy platform powering this online action) processes personal information from you that you enter on this form so that we can provide the functions and related services to you and The Campaigner (the organisation responsible for this online action) for their legitimate purposes, including possibly exporting it to other systems, and to effectively respond to enquiries and communications related to those services.

Specifically when you enter:

Your location data (residential address or postcode) it is used to locate your elected representative, to pre-populate your email signature and to provide The Campaigner with a visualisation of the location of the support for this campaign.
All other data you may enter, including your email address, name, telephone number, commentary and so on is used by The Campaigner to advocate for the campaign’s goals and where required may be sent to the target of the campaign.

The data collected by Do Gooder is also used by us in aggregate form to improve the service and may be held on your behalf outside your country of residence by our third party service providers. These providers are bound by contract to only use personal information on our behalf, in accordance with agreed terms. While the privacy laws of the country in which personal information is stored or transferred may be different from those in your country, we will always have safeguards in place when storing or transferring personal information. We will never sell, rent, loan or in any other way pass your information on to other parties other than to provide this service to you and The Campaigner.

The personal information collected by Do Gooder is held subject to a Data Processing Agreement between Do Gooder and The Campaigner in compliance with the EU's GDPR and Australian law.

Learn more about our privacy policy here

How is my data used?