Many overseas
friends and readers don’t understand the Dingo’s situation in Australia. As planes
take to the air once again to drop 1080 poison across the nation I thought I’d
take a look at the Queensland Wild Dog Strategy 2011 - 2016.
I will use it
as an example of how government bureaucracy across our nation kowtows to the
pastoral industry while making cursory gestures to appease conservationists and
ecologists - all at the expense of the Dingo.
There are several
definitions in the document but the key ones to remember while reading this are:
- Wild dogs
include all wild-living dogs (including
dingoes, feral dogs and hybrids)
- All wild
dogs are declared Class 2 pest animals under the Land Protection (Pest and
Stock Route Management) Act.
- Pure
dingoes are populations or individuals that have not hybridised with domestic
dogs.
Included in the
“desired”
outcomes about the Dingo are understanding science
on dingo genetic identification techniques; managing population ecology and populations
of dingoes of conservation “significance”. (I believe the only colony of dingoes in Queensland they
would in this category is on World Heritage Listed Fraser Island)
Confused yet? This
is how government uses its ‘dingo’ legislation as it suits the situation.
- The Dingo is also defined as both
“wildlife” and “native wildlife” under Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is a
natural source within protected areas e.g. National Parks.
- Under the Forestry
Act 1959 dingoes (being
indigenous animal life) are protected but the Nature Conservation (Wildlife)
Regulation 1994 specifically excludes dingoes from the common mammal
(indigenous to Australia) category.
- Wild dogs and dingoes are defined as
‘animals’ under the Animal Care and
Protection Act 2001 which provides for the control of pest animals only when
the control is undertaken in a way that causes the animal as little pain as is
reasonable.
- Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
manage dingoes in the protected areas. Outside protected area dingo is not
protected wildlife.
And now to the
table of impacts of wild dogs and dingoes.
It acknowledges
that feral dogs and hybrids compete directly with
dingoes for food and living spaces and hybridisation weakens the dingo gene
pool.
It also
acknowledges that dingoes limit feral animal populations (e.g. rabbits, goats,
pigs, cats and foxes), which in turn may aid the survival of native species and
admits that wild dogs may contribute to
reduce kangaroo, feral goat and pig populations.
Under the social impacts it says that wild dogs can be a nuisance to householders and tourists but Dingoes have a role in
tourism.
As a final
point, almost an afterthought, it acknowledges Dingoes have a significant role
in the spiritual and cultural practices of some Australians.
So in a nutshell
that’s how the Queensland Government sees the Dingo. Let’s look at how they
propose to manage the situation.
The strategy
examines various control methods. They
are trapping, shooting, baiting with both 1080 and strychnine, fencing,
Guardian Animals (guard dogs, llamas and donkeys) and aversion techniques such as strobe lights.
All have some
degree of cost and all, except for guardian animals and aversion therapy may
impact on non-target species. (Actually it also mentions shooting but I believe
that comes down to both the mentality and skill of the person.)
It then
examines the humanness of each method. Guardian animals and exclusion fencing is considered
a humane and non-lethal.
Shooting is considered humane when carried out by experienced, skilled
and responsible shooters. If lactating females are shot, efforts should be made
to find dependent pups and kill them quickly and humanely.
Regardless of the horrendous description of the way animals die from 1080
poisoning it CLAIMS the humaneness of 1080 is not yet fully understood. I don’t
know how anyone who has seen animal poisoned by this barbaric method can claim
it to be humane.
Strychnine is
considered inhumane and yet it is permitted if used “correctly” and although admitting trapping causes pain and distress
it goes on the describe methods to “increase animal welfare outcomes”.
So what are the
desired outcomes of all this - zero tolerance of
wild dogs inside the Wild Dog Barrier Fence, control of wild dogs elsewhere in
the state and reduction of wild dog impacts in the coastal, peri-urban and
rural residential management zones. The final desired outcome is conservation
of dingo populations in Queensland. Just a little reminder again that “wild
dogs” include Dingoes
In the extensive
pages of Strategic Action there is no mention of encouraging or financially subsidising
“kind control” methods.
Then we have
a few short paragraphs about “conserving the dingo”. Short statements about hybridisation
being the greatest threat to Dingo populations and DNA fingerprinting to detect hybridisation sit in the document without mention of how,
when or where this is going to be explored except for liaison with research
organisations and application of any new knowledge to management of ‘pure’
dingoes in Queensland protected areas.
I have used
the Queensland Wild Dog Strategy 2011 –
2016 to demonstrated the contradictory status of the Dingo but must point out
this situation is not limited to Queensland.
It is a complicated
situation across Australia with different laws and attitudes in each State,
plus a different set again federally. What they do have in common is that the
Dingo is either a pest or a protected species according to where it may live or
the whims of those in power.
