Letter to Victorian ministers: Public policy in Victoria regarding dingoes

To:

CC:

Dr Fiona Fraser
Threatened Species Commissioner, Australia

Re: Public policy in Victoria regarding dingoes

Dear Minister/s,

The undersigned wish to provide expert opinion concerning recent scientific advances in our understanding of the identity and ancestry of dingoes and the implications this has for public policy relating to ‘wild dogs’ and dingoes in Victoria.

We urge the Victorian Government to:

• Revoke (and not renew) the Order in Council unprotecting dingoes on private land and on publicland within 3 km of private land boundaries (Ecosystem Decline Inquiry recommendation 28) which is contrary to the listing of dingoes as a threatened species in Victoria. It is significant that when the Victorian Scientific Advisory Committee recommended the listing of the dingo as a threatened taxon, under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act in 2007, they identified that “…wild dog control programs, (including baiting and other control measures) …” have the potential to result in a “decline of remnant dingo populations and recruitment to those populations”. Dingoes should be protected on all public land.
• Adopt recommendations 8 and 28 of the Victorian Inquiry into Ecosystem Decline to:
  • Trial the reintroduction (or re-establishment) of dingoes as apex predators into suitable Victorian ecosystems. This would be consistent with the Victorian Labor 2018 Policy Platform, which committed to “…identify and recognise the ecological function of dingoes as part of biodiversity programs and management initiatives…”.
  • Revise fund and implement the threatened species Dingo Action Statement (no. 248).
• Update terminology in Victorian policy to refer to dingoes versus feral dogs to reflect the identity of wild canines accurately and transparently in Victoria.
• Grant wildlife status to dingo backcrosses. Animals with predominately dingo DNA hold conservation and cultural value. The characterisation of dingo backcrosses as ‘wild dogs’ is not evidence based. Granting wildlife status to dingo backcrosses is consistent with the Victorian Labor 2022 Policy Platform, which commits to the protection of “… native apex land predator populations (Canis dingo) in Victorian ecosystems including through recognition of dingo dominant hybrids as wildlife…”.

These changes in Victorian policy are justified based on genetic research by Cairns et al. (2023) that demonstrates:

1. Nearly all of the “wild dogs” DNA tested in Victoria were dingoes with no evidence of dog ancestry. Most of the remaining animals carried more than 93% dingo ancestry. No first- cross dingo-dog hybrids or feral dogs were found in the study. Previous genetic surveys of ‘wild dogs’ also found that first-cross hybrids and feral dogs were extremely rare in Australia.
2. Previous DNA testing methods misidentified pure dingoes as being mixed. All previous genetic surveys of wild dingo populations have used a low resolution 23-marker DNA test. This now outdated method is still used by NSW DPI, which DNA tests samples from AgVIC, Arthur Rylah Institute and other state government agencies. Comparisons between the advanced DNA testing method and the outdated 23-marker DNA test, found that the latter frequently misidentified animals as carrying dog ancestry when they did not. Therefore, the existing departmental understanding of dingo ancestry across Victoria is incorrect; policy needs to be based on updated genetic surveys.
3. There are multiple dingo populations in Australia. High-density genomic data identified more than four wild dingo populations in Australia. In Victoria there are at least two dingo populations present: South and Big Desert. The South dingo population was observed in eastern Victoria whilst the Big Desert population was found in western Victoria around Big Desert and Wyperfield and extends into Ngarkat Conservation Area in South Australia.
4. Dingo populations in Victoria are challenged by low genetic variability. Preliminary evidence from high density genomic testing of dingoes in western and eastern Victoria found evidence of limited genetic variability, which could be a serious conservation concern. Dingoes in western Victoria, in particular, had extremely low levels of genetic variability and no evidence of gene flow with other dingo populations demonstrating their effective isolation. This preliminary evidence suggests that the western Victoria (Big Desert) dingo population is especially threatened by inbreeding and genetic isolation. Additional information is urgently needed on the genetic health of Victorian dingo populations to develop an evidence-based dingo conservation policy. Continued lethal control of Victorian dingo populations could exacerbate the low levels of genetic variability and further challenge the survival of these populations.

It is important to emphasise the importance of dingoes in Victorian ecosystems. Dingoes are the sole non-human land-based top predator on the Australian mainland. Their importance to the ecological health and resilience of Australian ecosystems cannot be overstated, from regulating wild herbivore abundance (e.g. various kangaroo species), to reducing the impacts of feral mesopredators (cats, foxes) on native marsupials (Johnson & VanDerWal 2009; Wallach et al. 2010; Brook et al. 2012; Letnic et al. 2012; Letnic et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2015; Newsome et al. 2015; Morris & Letnic 2017; Geary et al. 2018; Thompson et al. 2022). Current Victorian public policy concerning dingoes effectively ignores this ecological reality.

Over the past two decades, ecological research in Australian ecosystems, and elsewhere in the world, has increasingly demonstrated the importance of conserving medium to large-sized predators for ecosystem health and the preservation of biodiversity. Diminishing predator populations tend to be associated with ecosystem instability and native species decline. The extinction of a diverse suite of large carnivorous marsupials thousands of years ago (and the more recent local and functional extinctions of quoll species across much of Australia) has already simplified the structure of wildlife communities in Australia. The dingo is a keystone species that benefits small animals and plant communities by suppressing and changing the behaviours of mammalian herbivores and smaller predators (including introduced foxes and feral cats) (Johnson & VanDerWal 2009; Wallach et al. 2010; Brook et al. 2012; Letnic et al. 2012; Letnic et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2015; Newsome et al. 2015; Morris & Letnic 2017; Geary et al. 2018; Thompson et al. 2022). Their presence adds a stabilising influence and provides ecosystem resilience for species only found in Australia.

Dingoes are listed as Threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria) and are protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act 1975 (Victoria). However, under an Order by Council renewed on 18 September 2018, dingoes are unprotected on all private land in Victoria, and public land within 3 km of any private land boundary, within certain areas of the state. Even so, lethal control extends far beyond 3 kms in some areas, especially considering that 1080 fox baits are lethal to dingoes. We underline the need for significantly improved protection of dingoes within Victorian ecosystems. Dingoes are threatened by low genetic variability, habitat loss, increased frequency and intensity of bushfires and ongoing lethal control programs, which breaks down pack structure and may increase the risk of hybridisation with domestic dogs.

We also wish to clarify that the terminology ‘wild dog’ is not appropriate when discussing wild canids in Victoria, or more generally in Australia. In Victoria, Cairns et al. 2023 have shown that of their Victorian DNA tested samples nearly 90% were dingoes with no evidence of dog ancestry. Furthermore, the few dingoes found to be carrying dog ancestry all had more than 85% dingo DNA. Continued use of the terminology ‘wild dog’ is misleading and promotes confusion regarding the use of lethal control to target a threatened native predator in Victoria. Additionally, use of the term ‘wild dog’ fails to acknowledge and respect the value dingoes hold for many First Nations people in Victoria.

Existing Victorian Government policy is incompatible with the conservation of dingoes and their ecological function and in conflict with their listing as a threatened species.

In this context, we strongly emphasise the following points:

• The negative ecological consequences of lethal control of dingoes could seriously harm the biodiversity, resilience and health of Victoria’s ecosystems.
• Non-lethal forms of farm stock protection (e.g. the use of guardian dogs and strategic fencing) have not been adequately supported and trialled as an alternative to lethal control. Alternative methods like the use of livestock guardian dogs have provenhighly successful overseas and where trialled in Australia, see van Bommel and Johnson (2012, 2023). Other measures include improved livestock fencing, husbandry, adopt predator smart deterrents and protection measures on private land should be the primary aim of policy (Boronyak et al. 2023). Funds currently spent on dingo control should be allocated to investment in non-lethal management strategies and training for primary producers.
• Continued lethal control of dingoes is likely to facilitate increases in mesopredator (cat and fox) and herbivore (kangaroos, wallabies, feral goats, and potentially deer) populations that are currently managed as pests. This will in turn threaten livestock production through the spread of disease by cats (e.g. toxoplasmosis, which can cause abortion in livestock), increased fox populations (which pose a significant risk to lambs), overgrazing by non-stock animals (e.g. kangaroos), and suppress populations of native, threatened species.
• The extent and intensity of lethal control are disproportionate to the relatively small scale of the threat dingoes pose to farm stock in Victoria. Landholders should be supported to seek new measures ofstock protection including electric fencing, livestock guardian animals, changes to animal husbandry, etc. before resorting to lethal control (Boronyak and Jacobs 2023).
• Lethal control should be targeted, evidence-based, and balanced against the need to maintain ecological resilience and animal welfare. Further, there is considerable evidence that haphazard,broad-scale baiting can actually make conflict with livestock producers worse (Allen & Gonzalez 1998; Allen 2015).
• Pre- and post-baiting monitoring should be done to document the effect of 1080 aerial baiting in Victorian ecosystems and allow assessment of whether baiting programs are effective at reducing livestock predation, and hence, what the overall return on investment is.
• Continued use of the terminology ‘wild dog’ is not justified because wild canids in Australia are dingoes and dingo backcrosses, not feral domestic dogs. The current policy distinction between dingoes and ‘wild dogs’ is based on an ecologically unproven distinction between ‘pure’ dingoes and ecologically functional ‘dingo backcrosses’. The weight of scientific evidence is that there is no valid ecological distinction to be made.
• Lethal control programs may impact on the genetic viability of persisting dingo populations by compounding low genetic variability with reduced gene flow, resulting in genetic bottlenecking.
• The “wild dog” bounty should be discontinued as it is not targeted to locations where there may belegitimate stock loss concern, is not evidence-based and it encourages the recreational killing of a listed threatened species.
• The Australian public expects lethal control to be a last resort measure in attempting to solve human-wildlife conflicts.
• Given the low number of sheep lost in Victoria to dingo predation, relative to the total Victorian sheep flock (100-200 sheep per million sheep annually), scarce public funds would be more cost-effectively spent on trialling financial compensation of landholders for verified stock loss, as an alternative to lethal control.
• Lethal control of dingoes should not be undertaken without culturally appropriate consultation with the First Nations peoples of Victoria, some of whom consider dingoes to be a totem animal.

Aerial baiting programs pose direct risks to dingoes as well as other native fauna including Spot-tailed Quolls. It is not known what impact 1080 aerial baiting has on spot- tailed quoll populations in terms of sub-lethal effects to fertility, longevity and fitness, particularly if their population density is very low, as in Victoria. Aerial baiting programs suppress the dingo population which releases mesopredators such as feral cats andred foxes and large herbivores including feral pigs, deer and goats. The impacts of feral cats and red foxeson species like Spot-tailed Quolls is likely to be amplified in disturbed ecosystems that are subjected to 1080 baiting. Indiscriminate and non-target specific lethal management should not be implemented if there is a risk to the persistence of threatened native fauna, which includes both dingoes and Spot-tailed Quolls.

We strongly urge the Minister to revoke the Order in Council unprotecting dingoes in Victoria, cease the ‘wilddog’ bounty in Victoria and to reconsider the use of 1080 baiting for canids that will kill dingoes, including through aerial baiting. We also urge the Minister to affirm endorsement of the dingo as ‘a threatened species of conservation priority’ and direct the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to develop a conservation strategy in Victoria that maximises the preservation and protection of dingoes in the Victorian landscape. On the balance of scientific evidence, ethical reasoning and society-wide expectations, protection of dingoes should be enhanced rather than diminished. We would also urge the Victorian Government to consult with dingo conservation organisations, scientists and First Nations people more widely during the development of Victorian State Government policy concerning dingoes.

Signed

References

Allen LR (2014) Wild dog control impacts on calf wastage in extensive beef cattle enterprises. Animal Production Science, 54, 214-220.

Allen LR (2015) Demographic and functional responses of wild dogs to poison baiting. Ecological Management & Restoration, 16, 58-66.

Allen LR, Gonzalez A (1998) Bating reduces dingo numbers, changes age structures yet often increases calf losses. In: 11th Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference.

Boronyak, L., Jacobs, B. and Smith, B (2023). Unlocking lethal dingo management in Australia. Diversity, 15(5), p.642.

Boronyak, L. and Jacobs, B., 2023. Pathways to coexistence with dingoes across Australian farminglandscapes. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 4, p.1126140.

Brook LA, Johnson CN, Ritchie EG (2012) Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1278-1286.

Cairns KM, Crowther MS, Parker HG, Ostrander EA, Letnic M (2023) Genome-wide variant analyses reveal new patterns of admixture and population structure in Australian dingoes. Molecular Ecology, 32, 4133-4150

Davis NE, Forsyth DM, Triggs B, Pascoe C, Benshemesh J, Robley A, Lawrence J, Ritchie EG, Nimmo DG,Lumsden LF (2015) Interspecific and Geographic Variation in the Diets of Sympatric Carnivores: Dingoes/Wild Dogs and Red Foxes in South- Eastern Australia. Plos One, 10, e0120975.

Geary WL, Ritchie EG, Lawton JA, Healey TR, Nimmo DG (2018) Incorporating disturbance into trophicecology: fire history shapes mesopredator suppression by an apex predator. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 1594-1603.

Johnson CN, VanDerWal J (2009) Evidence that dingoes limit abundance of a mesopredator in easternAustralian forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 641-646.

Letnic M, Baker L, Nesbitt B (2013) Ecologically functional landscapes and the role of dingoes as trophic regulators in south-eastern Australia and other habitats. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14, 101-105.

Letnic M, Koch F (2010) Are dingoes a trophic regulator in arid Australia? A comparison of mammal communities on either side of the dingo fence. Austral Ecology, 35, 167- 175.

Letnic M, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR (2012) Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 87, 390-413.

Mitchell DR, Cairns SC, Koertner G, Bradshaw CJA, Saltré F, Weisbecker V (2023) Differential developmentrates and demographics in red kangaroo (Osphranter rufus) populations separated by the dingo barrier fence. Journal of Mammalogy, doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyad053.

Morris T, Letnic M (2017) Removal of an apex predator initiates a trophic cascade that extends fromherbivores to vegetation and the soil nutrient pool. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284, 20170111.

Moseby KE, Crowther MS, Letnic M (2019) Ecological role of an apex predator revealed by a reintroduction experiment and Bayesian statistics. Ecosystems, 22, 283-295.

Newsome TM, Ballard G-A, Crowther MS, Dellinger JA, Fleming PJS, Glen AS, Greenville AC, Johnson CN,Letnic M, Moseby KE, Nimmo DG, Nelson MP, Read JL, Ripple WJ, Ritchie EG, Shores CR, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ, Dickman CR (2015) Resolving the value of the dingo in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 23, 201-208.

Pople AR, Grigg GC, Cairns SC, Beard LA, Alexander P (2000) Trends in the numbers of red kangaroos and emus on either side of the South Australian dingo fence: evidence for predator regulation? Wildlife Research, 27, 269-276.

Prowse TAA, Johnson CN, Cassey P, Bradshaw CJA, Brook BW (2015) Ecological and economic benefits to cattle rangelands of restoring an apex predator. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 455-466.

Smith BP, Cairns KM, Adams JW, Newsome TM, Fillios M, Déaux EC, Parr WCH, Letnic M, Van Eeden LM, Appleby RG, Bradshaw CJA, Savolainen P, Ritchie EG, Nimmo DG, Archer-Lean C, Greenville AC, Dickman CR, Watson L, Moseby KE, Doherty TS, Wallach AD, Morrant DS, Crowther MS (2019)Taxonomic status of the Australian dingo: the case for Canis dingo Meyer, 1793. Zootaxa, 4564, 173-197.

Thompson ER, Driscoll DA, Venn SE, Geary WL, Ritchie EG (2022) Interspecific variation in the diet of anative apex predator and invasive mesopredator in an alpine ecosystem. Austral Ecology, 47, 1260-1270.

van Bommel L, Johnson CN (2012) Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia’s extensive grazing systems. Wildlife Research, 39, 220-229.

van Bommel L, Johnson CN (2023) Still a good dog! Long-term use and effectiveness of livestock guardian dogs to protect livestock from predators in Australia’s extensive grazing systems. Wildlife Research, doi:10.1071/WR23008.

van Eeden LM, Newsome TM, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Bruskotter J (2019) Social identity shapes support for management of wildlife and pests. Biological Conservation, 231, 167-173.

van Eeden LM, Newsome TM, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Bruskotter J (2020) Diverse public perceptions of species’ status and management align with conflicting conservation frameworks. Biological Conservation, 242, 108416.

Wallach AD, Johnson CN, Ritchie EG, O’Neill AJ (2010) Predator control promotes invasive dominated ecological states. Ecology Letters, 13, 1008-1018.