National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program

In response to claims that DNA from a 350-year-old dingo tooth could save the species in Australia, National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program spokesperson Dr Ian Gunn said the reverse was the case. “On past experience, the evidence will be used to justify a continued sheep industry campaign to exterminate the species across Australia. Just because of the introgression of domestic dog genetics in some individuals, or because they are not the dingo variety identified by the genes in this ‘one-tooth’, they then falsely claim the animals they are killing are not real dingoes."

The Dingo Genome

The dingo genome was identified first by the late Dr Allan Wilton. His research partner, Dr Kylie Cairns has recently discovered that there was more than one dingo introduction, at least two, probably with varying genetics.

Dr Gunn said,

“Given the long pre-history of trade between northern Australian Aborigines and the seafarers thought to have brought the dingo to Australia - from the Middle East, India and South East Asia over thousands of years - there is little doubt there were many introductions. In this context it is amazing to find a University of the Sunshine Coast researcher now seeming to claim the tooth of one will reveal ‘the full genomic breakdown of the pure dingo’. It will really only reveal the genome of one race of dingo, descended from one of an unknown number of introductions."

He added that the trouble with DNA science on this subject is its misuse by proponents of broad-hectare baiting, on the grounds that a small proportion of domestic dog genes means the animal is not a real dingo. He called a preoccupation with genetic purity a "distraction from the real issue, which is apex predator ecological function, which most hybrids are performing."

“In any case, the construction of a pre colonisation genetic benchmark would need to be representative and the collection of enough pre-settlement samples to achieve this, especially given evidence of different lineages, would be virtually impossible," he argued.

Current 'solutions' make the problem worse

On the issue of baiting, he stated:

“Baiting is a cruel and massively taxpayer funded industry with its own profit making agenda. It is already destroying ecological balances, endangering wildlife and, for farmers, worsening all the problems it claims to be solving. Broad-hectare baiting has already caused immense problems for farmers by driving dingoes from public lands, where they should be left alone, onto people’s farms."

“Proponents say it disrupts dingo pack structure and forces the dingoes to move on, as though these are good things. Farmers with properties adjoining public land might ask the authorities where the dingoes move on to, because the answer is their place."

“The breakdown of pack structure caused by baiting is the prime cause of the hybridization these people also claim to be concerned about. Without pack disruption, stable dingo packs will kill rather than breed with wild or stray dogs."

He observed that some cattle graziers say they are better off with dingoes controlling herbivore numbers and vegetable and grain growers have fewer problems with rabbits and rats. Even sheep farmers have far worse problems than dingoes – heat, cold, drought, flood and the real feral predators of the piece, the banks.

Millions of dollars wasted on baiting

“Dingoes are such an insignificant, though exaggerated problem, that official statistics in Victoria show it would be dramatically cheaper to pay farmers a better than market price for lost sheep than to spend the millions of dollars now being used to subsidise baiting."

Despite this reality, he said that the new research into the genes from one tooth will be used to manufacture public consent for more baiting, more poison and more extermination.

“Farmers will be worse off and so will we all,” he concluded.

This document was forwarded to candobetter.net by the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (A0051763G). On October 17, the Victorian Wilderness Society, in its Wild Chat bulletin wrote: "Hunting Dingoes, Logging Koalas, Pounding Plovers, and Heeding Dr Seuss Bounty brings uncontrolled threat to Victoria’s dingoes." The bulletin concluded, "It now appears the Andrews Government has lost its way, and is taking a regressive step towards failure for both dingo conservation and a balanced resolution of conservation and farming interests." We republish here the contents of that bulletin.

Hunting Dingoes, Logging Koalas, Pounding Plovers, and Heeding Dr Seuss Bounty brings uncontrolled threat to Victoria’s dingoes.

On 26 October, the Andrews Government announced a 'bounty' system—members of the public will now be offered a reward of $120 for every dingo or wild dog killed.
There is deep concern over the impact of a bounty on Victoria’s threatened dingo populations, as well as potentially counterproductive impacts on livestock protection.
Dingoes and wild dogs were previously targeted strategically—in areas where farmers were experiencing stock loss problems. In contrast, the bounty system applies to very large areas—over half of the relevant public land in eastern Victoria is subject to the bounty—regardless of whether livestock protection is required.

The potential impacts of a bounty program are acknowledged, with departmental terms and conditions recognising:

"Dingoes often occur in areas inhabited by wild dogs, appear morphologically similar to wild dogs and are extremely difficult to differentiate from wild dogs. This means that wild dog control programs have the potential to directly impact on dingoes"[i].

The key issue is poorly informed members of the public unnecessarily killing dingoes and dingo hybrids and subsequent disruption of pack structures—believed to result in changes to territorial boundaries and increased risk of hybridisation and stock loss.

The bounty system is fundamentally out-of-step with our changing understanding of the place of the dingo in the Australian landscape. [Candobetter.net Editor emphasis]

Historically, farmers viewed the dingo simply as a pest responsible for stock loss and associated financial and emotional stress. This perception was reflected in government regulations, where the dingo was classified as a pest to be killed or controlled across both public and private land.

More recently, understanding and evidence has grown to recognise the dingo as a top order predator in the Australian environment, providing an overall benefit to biodiversity and ecosystem function [ii]. Research indicates that dingoes can reduce fox and cat numbers, resulting in stronger, healthier populations of small native mammals, as well as regulating kangaroo numbers and their impact on native vegetation.

In 2008, the Victorian Labor Government listed the dingo as threatened. In consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the government catalysed a re-framing of the dingo’s place in Victorian ecosystems and set out a path to balance dingo conservation requirements and stock protection. This decision reflected a growing appreciation around the globe of the role of top predators in the environment, such as the reintroduction of the grey wolf to Yellowstone National Park in the United States [iii].

Then, in a damaging policy development, the subsequent Coalition Government introduced a bounty scheme on dingoes and wild dogs. The bounty was in place from 2011 to 2015, when a re-elected Labor Government abolished the bounty.

And now, in October 2016, we find the Minister for Agriculture, Jaala Pulford, reintroducing a dingo and wild dog bounty scheme. It is highly concerning the Environment Minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, who has responsibilities towards the conservation of Victoria’s dingoes, has not yet been seen on this issue.

Resolving this issue will require the engagement of both ministers and a balanced approach between dingo conservation and livestock protection, where education and information is provided across both management objectives. Allowing, or indeed encouraging, the public to kill wild dogs and dingoes on public land driven by livestock protection objectives is really only providing half the picture and is setting the dual dingo conservation/stock protection program on a path to failure.

It now appears the Andrews Government has lost its way, and is taking a regressive step towards failure for both dingo conservation and a balanced resolution of conservation and farming interests.

More information
https://theconversation.com/why-victorias-dingo-and-wild-dog-bounty-is-doomed-to-miss-its-target-66980

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-advisory-group-on-wild-dogs-bigger-bounty/

See also: Help Save Koalas From Extinction! (9/1/2014) on the Australian Wildlife Protection web site.

With the destruction of yet another juvenile dingo on Fraser Island, the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) and the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (NDPRP) today issued a joint criticism of the Queensland Government for its continuing mismanagement of the Fraser Island dingo population.

The juvenile male dingo was destroyed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff this week after it allegedly stalked tourists near Eli Creek on the Island and nipped an 11 year old child.

Spokespersons for the Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc. (AWPC) and the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program Inc. (NDPRP), Ms Jennifer Parkhurst and Dr Ernest Healy, respectively, stressed that:

‘Such allegations of aggression by dingoes on Fraser Island are frequently subjective, often being misinterpretations of innocent dingo behaviour, and have characterised the mismanagement of dingoes on the Island for a long time. The Queensland authorities have a long track record of manufacturing perceptions of dingo ‘aggression’ on Fraser Island, at times even encouraging a fear mentality against dingoes amongst tourists’.

Ms Parkhurst, a wildlife photographer who studied dingoes on the Island at close hand for many years, stated that, this most recent destruction of a juvenile dingo on Fraser Island, after contact with tourists, highlights an even deeper mismanagement issue.

‘The underlying problem with the Queensland government’s approach to managing the Island, which is World Heritage listed, is the sheer volume of tourists that it allows onto Fraser Island, currently running at well over 400,000 per year. The dingoes are literally over run by tourists, including beach areas which are traditionally places where dingoes forage for food. Efforts by the authorities to virtually confine dingoes to the central areas of the Island, where they can be ‘wild’, without contact with people, are ill-conceived and unachievable. While this prioritisation of commercial values over biodiversity values continues, more dingoes will die and their ability to survive on Fraser Island in the medium to longer-term will be in doubt.’

Ms Parkhurst said hopes that the Newman government would mean a fresh approach to dingo management on Fraser Island have now proven unfounded.

‘Despite a review of the Fraser Island dingo management policy on coming to government in 2012, the current Queensland government has fallen into the same old mismanagement practices. Part of the problem is that there has not been a sufficient turnover of Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff to ensure departmental cultural renewal in relation to dingo management on the Island.’

Dr Healy emphasised that the ongoing culling of Fraser Island dingoes is being permitted by the Queensland authorities without sufficient base-line dingo population data to know whether the authorised killing of dingoes is undermining the viability of the Island’s population:

‘Convincing answers are yet to be provided by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service as to the total dingo population of Fraser Island, the population age structure, including the number of breeding pairs, and the genetic health of the dingo population. This is essential knowledge for any responsible dingo management policy. It has been lacking.

At present the authorities simply keep citing a figure of between 100 and 200 animals, a figure that has been blindly thrown around by the authorities for years without adequate research to substantiate it. The fact that the Queensland authorities have only recently put forward a detailed research agenda to address these dingo population questions bears out the inadequacy and potential risk of dingo management practices up to this point.’

The AWPC and the NDPRP are concerned that the majority of animals killed on Fraser Island have been juveniles. Without accurate population data on the Island’s breeding population, the impact of culling juveniles upon the overall dingo population’s survival prospects is not known. Destruction of juveniles impacts negatively upon future generations because they perform an important role as parental helpers in raising subsequent litters and they disperse to form new packs.

January 8, 2015

Jane Goodall and Dingo Conservation

Australia has just had a visit by world renowned primatologist and threatened species advocate Jane Goodall. While in Melbourne, she entered the debate surrounding dingo conservation, making a number of public statements and issuing a media statement which commented on the issue.

It is not surprising that Jane Goodall would advocate for threatened species while in Australia. However, her intervention on dingo conservation is problematic as not all dingo conservation advocates and their organisations base their case on the assumption that the dingo is a threatened species. Goodall appears to have adopted a less progressive position on dingo conservation than was immediately apparent to the general public, or perhaps than she was aware of.

Background

In a nutshell, the controversy surrounding dingo conservation has been underpinned by a growing body of environmental research, which highlights the importance of conserving dingo populations for environmental balance, on the one hand, and long-established anti-dingo or ‘wild-dog’ sentiment amongst elements of the pastoral industry, on the other hand, who deem the dingo to be a pest animal to be eradicated or, at least, controlled through lethal means at a landscape level. The legal status of the dingo across much of Australia largely reflects this historically entrenched pest-animal perspective. Victoria is something of an exception, where the dingo was listed as a threatened native taxon in 2010 and ‘wild-dog’ control is geographically constrained as a result.

The growing dissonance between environmental research, which concludes that dingo conservation within ecosystems should be harnessed in the service of good environmental management, and established pest animal legislation is complicated by the fact that dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) hybridise with their domestic counterpart, the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris).

Pastoral industry advocates, concerned to fend off the idea that dingoes should not be managed simply as pests, but an environmental asset, have latched hold of hybridisation to argue that what currently exists in the wild are not dingoes, but hybrids, which ought not be considered indigenous or wildlife, and are therefore ineligible for protection. It is at times further argued that in controlling hybrids through ‘wild-dog’ control (poisoning and trapping on a large scale) protection is afforded to remnant ‘pure’ dingoes. Indeed, current purity testing techniques show hybridisation to be widespread, particularly in south eastern Australia.

So, where does this leave dingo conservation advocates, including Jane Goodall’s dingo intervention? One view is that the key task at hand is to locate and protect remnant ‘pure’ dingo populations. This, however, implies that, from a conservation perspective, wild hybrid populations are a threat to be managed, or controlled. ‘Pure’ dingo populations would need to be isolated from hybrid populations. Elements of the farming lobby have support this view. Adherence to this perspective also has significant consequences for where dingoes can be conserved. If dingo purity data is to be believed, hybridisation is widespread throughout much of south eastern Australia. Unless it is possible to completely eradicate wild hybrid populations across south eastern Australia, and then seed the landscape with pure dingo stock, or genetically isolate remnant pockets of ‘pure’ dingoes, wave goodbye to dingo conservation there.

An alternative dingo conservation perspective is one that accommodates the reality of hybridisation in defining what is to be conserved. The key consideration from this perspective is the ecological function of wild populations, even if they have undergone some degree of hybridisation. If the role played in the natural environment by hybridised populations is essentially the same as the pre-European dingo, then considerations of genetic purity become an unnecessary distraction. This approach is lent support by the fact that much of the in-the-field research into the role of the dingo in maintaining top-down ecological balance, as a top order predator, has been conducted with populations that were probably hybridised. There is currently no research to show that hybridisation presents a biodiversity risk within Australian ecosystems.

Another consideration in evaluating these different dingo conservation perspectives is the uncertainty involved with current dingo purity testing techniques. Two approaches are in use. The older method involved making a large number of fine measurements from an assumed representative sample of dingo skulls, and creating a skull profile that is presumed to represent pure dingoes. Any particular skull being tested is then compared for conformity with this profile. The other, more recent method compares key genetic markers from extant dingoes/dingo hybrids with a genetic benchmark that has been derived from a sample of dingoes presumed to have been pure. The real limitation of both of these methods is that there is no pre-European representative sample of either, skulls or genetic make-up. It may never be possible to overcome this limitation. In addition to this uncertainty, ‘pure’ dingoes and dingo hybrids are not readily distinguishable in appearance. Dingo researcher, Dr Laurie Corbett, once commented that although he believed dingoes in north eastern Victoria had undergone some hybridisation, this was not visually apparent. He speculated that this was because the strong selection pressure for survival in this region was effectively pushing the hybrids back into an ancestral conformation.

It is fair to say that, over time, the foremost dingo advocacy organisations have gravitated away from a preoccupation with genetic purity towards the ecological function perspective in deciding what conservation strategies and legislative change should be pursued. Possibly the most developed policy position is that of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program. This organisation makes a distinction between the remnant ‘ancestral dingo’ populations, representative of the pre-European type and the ‘modern dingo’, which encompasses wild populations that perform a desirable ecological role, but which have undergone some degree of hybridisation. Ancestral dingo populations may plausibly be conserved in isolated settings, as in island locations, and captive ‘ancestral’ conservation populations are encouraged as a genetic resource for reintroduction where the circumstances are appropriate. The NDPRP sees the main conservation task, however, in securing the protection of extant populations despite the hybridisation that has occurred. This does not mean that reasonable measures should not be taken to limit further hybridisation.

Once it is accepted that the main dingo conservation task is to secure the legal protection of extant wild dingo populations despite some level of hybridisation, and to gain official recognition of the environmental benefits of such populations, the idea that dingoes are threatened with imminent extinction becomes largely irrelevant. The conservation focus turns instead to the negative environmental consequences of dingo persecution through lethal landscape-level control regimes.

Where can Jane Goodall’s intervention be located in this context?

It is significant therefore that Jane Goodall’s statements appear to have fallen within the genetic purity camp. Her public pronouncements centred round the imminent extinction of the dingo and the prospect of hybridisation. The following statement, was aired on Channel 10 News on June 5th:

…I suppose that they [dingoes] will become extinct and the last few will be hybridised with domestic dogs, and the wild dingo will be gone forever. (10 Eyewitness News, June 5)

This basic message was picked up more widely within the Australian media:

While in Australia, she will talk about the need to protect dingoes, now regarded as being on the verge of extinction. (Radio Australia, June 5, 15:31)

A more sophisticated account is contained in a prepared public statement by the Jane Goodall Institute Australia, dated June 5th. This account, however, remains confused on the key issues of purity, hybridisation and ecological function. The claim that ‘the species could face extinction after decades of persecution’ is repeated. Reference is made to the listing of the dingo as threated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an assessment based on considerations of genetic purity. The regulatory role of the dingo as top land predator is correctly recognised, as is the view of many scientists that the dingo is ‘…ecologically vital for the health of our land and other native species’… . The relationship between the disruption of packs from poison baiting and increased hybridisation is also noted. A serious flaw in this account, however, is that the populations of dingoes which scientists have concluded are significant for ecosystem health are not necessarily pure, but characterised by some degree of hybridisation. The ecological benefit that has been observed has not depended on the genetic purity of the dingo populations. As noted above, once this is acknowledged, concerns about near-term ‘extinction’ go out the window. Conservation efforts then turn to how extant hybridised populations can be accepted under the rubric of wildlife and protected for their positive environmental role. The confused understanding of the issues underpins the Institute’s claim that very few Alpine dingoes remain. This claim depends upon the view that Alpine dingoes in South eastern Australia are particularly hybridised, being closest to population centres where contact with domestic dogs is more likely. However, once one accepts the ecological function approach to dingo conservation, there is no shortage of Alpine Dingoes. South eastern Australia is full of them; they should be governed humanely and protected as wildlife.

A lost opportunity

The Jane Goodall intervention was therefore a lost opportunity to communicate more widely the complexity of dingo conservation issues. However, the thrust of Jane Goodall’s intervention was at odds with what is, arguably, now the predominant perspective amongst dingo advocacy organisations in Australia, as well as the direction of much scientific research which highlights the beneficial ecological role of existing (‘modern’) dingo populations. This is unfortunate. Pastoral industry representative organisations are not likely to be perturbed at the basic message of the Jane Goodall’s intervention. Some may openly agree with it. It is a simplistic, purist view that some dingo advocates held around a decade ago, but have now left behind for a more mature perspective.

One is left pondering how this could have occurred. Was it an informed choice by the Jane Goodall Institute? Would not a high-profile international organisation, which would have invested considerable resources in preparing for Jane Goodall’s Australian visit, have been aware of the competing perspectives on dingo conservation in Australia, and the current state of play between them? Perhaps part of the explanation relates to the Goodall Institute’s focus on threatened species. Did the idea that dingoes are on the ‘verge of extinction’ fit more neatly with the Institute’s established focus? If the dingo is viewed as persecuted, but not in threat of immediate extinction, then the threatened species message loses leverage. Although the net effect on public awareness of dingo conservation has most likely been positive from the intervention, the specific message communicated may stand to frustrate the efforts of the leading dingo conservation organisations which do the heavy lifting in pushing for appropriate legislative change on the issue.

The President of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (NDPRP), Jennifer Parkhurst, labelled the Queensland government’s recently conducted review of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy a bitter disappointment. They outcome of the policy review to be a whitewash, with very little being done in practice to shift the focus of the management strategy to dingo conservation.

Jennifer Parkhurst said that:

‘The NDPRP believes that the review process was only superficially objective, being intended from the outset to gloss over the distorted priorities in the Island’s dingo management strategy, as well as years of deficient management practices by government authorities. These basic deficiencies of the previous policy have been largely covered over by the review process.’

It soon became apparent that the consultancy firm engaged by the Queensland government to conduct the policy review did not have sufficient in-house expertise to carry it out.

There were serious conflicts of interest. One expert had been involved in the development of the policy that was being reviewed, and the other expert, the son of the first, was put in a position of having to review criticisms of the management policy that his father had been involved with. This is hardly conducive to independent analysis!

1.The review continues to label emaciated dingoes as ‘naturally lean’. This is an insult to observations made by many people including veterinarians and animal welfare experts about emaciated dingoes. On the contrary, they are being starved!

2.Dingo ecology is being ignored, with little clear idea of overall dingo numbers, the numbers of breeding pairs, and the genetic health of the dingo population are currently not known with sufficient certainty.

3.The Coalition government’s spending priorities for the management of the Island’s dingo population are distorted. $300,000 will be spent on a VHF radio network expansion to improve ranger response times. What purpose will this serve? A further $84,000 is being spent on new ‘dingo safety’ signage. This is about administration, not dingoes!
Ironically, $50,000 is being spent to develop a science-based research project to ensure animal welfare issues are based on science. Why would this be necessary if the policy was science-based, as government authorities claim it to have been? This funding is an admission that the policy has not been adequately science based. What's been more of a priority is ensuring Fraser Island remains a "safe" haven for tourists, and tourist dollars!

4.The Strategy foreshadows ‘potential’ visits by vets and the ‘possibility’ of establishing a wildlife care facility, but no actual funding has been put aside for these vital conservation requirements. "Possible" and "potential" are not of substance, and will do nothing for establishing anything material, or health-wise, for the dingoes.

5. The new Strategy states that only animals weighing 10 kilos or more will be tagged, but this would still include pups. Save Fraser Island Dingoes (SFID) and NDPRP have been lobbying for dingoes not to be tagged until they are 12 months old.

6. Any dingo "anticipated" to be a problem will be tagged! SFID and NDPRP continue to believe that dingo behaviour has been systematically misunderstood by rangers, having been subjective and inconsistent. For example, a dingo that exhibits a play-bow is labelled by one ranger as ‘playing’ and another as ‘dominance testing’.

The cessation of hazing has been noted by locals and tour operators as a very positive change for the dingoes. However, this has only been suspended pending further research.

The Fraser Island Management Strategy review is that it has turned a blind eye to the gross cruelty inflicted on a dingo in 2011, which had been trapped by management staff as part of radio collaring research. Cruelty has breached the law on more than one count, including a failure to put in place proper ethical approval for the research, and that the incident should be investigated by the government with a view to litigation of the government staff responsible. To date, this legal notification appears to have been ignored.

Jennifer Parkhurst stated that:
‘It should be of concern to all Queenslanders that the Coalition government seems willing to push serious breaches of animal welfare law by government agencies under the rug. The NDPRP intends pursuing these cruelty infringements in the courts. However, it would be preferable if the government dealt with these illegalities in a publically transparent manner. Unfortunately, that the policy review ignored this instance of serious mismanagement is consistent with broader deficiencies of the review process. ’

Azaria Chamberlain was just nine weeks old when she disappeared on Aug. 17, 1980, from a camping ground near Ayer's Rock, (now known as Uluru), in Australia's outback.

Lindy Chamberlain said soon after that she saw a dingo leaving the family's tent with the baby in its mouth. Azaria's body has never been found.

The 32-year-old case of whether a dingo killed baby Azaria Chamberlain may finally be closed as an inquest in Australia hears new evidence.

When Lindy Chamberlain cried out that a dingo's got my baby, it reverberated round Australia, bringing reactions of incredulity and skepticism, fueled by the seemingly calm appearance of Michael and Lindy Chamberlain.

Two campers, Bill and Judith West, heard a dingo growl near the tent. There were dingo paw prints at the entrance. There were drag marks in the sand and an indentation consistent with a baby's jumpsuit and people actually followed dingo tracks for a time away from the campsite.   The Chamberlains gave the tent to the police who allegedly cleaned the tent floor, erasing evidence.

The Chamberlains went on trial, Lindy convicted of murder in October 1982 and sentenced to life imprisonment - a mandatory sentence for murder in the Territory.   Michael given a suspended sentence for being an accessory after the fact.

The coronial inquest into the death in the Australian outback of baby Azaria, the fourth since the infant disappeared, began in Darwin Magistrates Court in the Northern Territory in response to new information provided by the baby's parents.

The evidence concerns several dingo attacks on infants and young children since Azaria's death.

(The inquest) is the only way I know to let Australians know once and for all that dingoes are dangerous, a statement from Mrs Chamberlain-Creighton read in court said.   

Fraser Island’s dingo population is facing extinction within the next ten to 20 years and continue to be labeled as “dangerous” and aggressive animals.

National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program - Media Release

National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program ( Inc. A0051763G)spokesperson, Dr Ernest Healy, stated in a Media Release February 21, 2012, that:

DERM has applied a ridiculously loose standard in labeling contact between dingoes and humans on Fraser Island as ‘attacks’ or as ‘dangerous’.

The Department has applied a no-tolerance approach to dingo-human contact, whereby virtually any contact at all has been labeled as ‘aggression’ on the part of the dingo. DERM has persisted with categorizing the most trivial forms of contact as aggressive, for which large numbers of high-conservation-value dingoes have been put down.

Dr Healy added:

That these flawed records, a product of the mismanagement of the Fraser Island dingo population, should now be used to further vilify the reputation of the dingo in the Azaria Chamberlain case appears self-serving on DERM’s part. One has to wonder if DERM is now using the Azaria Chamberlain inquest to attempt to legitimize its track record of dingo mismanagement on Fraser Island. If so, this situation is one that all Queenslanders should be outraged about.

That records compiled as a part of the mismanagement of the Fraser Island dingo population should now be used to vilify the dingo in another context highlights the need for a judicial enquiry into Fraser Island dingo management by DERM. A change of government in Queensland in the near future may provide the catalyst for such an enquiry.

Further, it is of concern that Chamberlain attorney may rely on DERM assertions which can be shown to be incorrect. In particular, the claim that habituation = aggression is misleading and may distort the inquiry’s findings. Although DERM maintains that its categorisation of dingo behaviour on Fraser Island is objective, in practice its use of the term ‘aggression’ remains largely subjective.

A member of our group spent 7 years in the field on Fraser Island observing dingoes at close quarters – photographing them and recording their behaviour. She was never harmed, threatened or attacked.

Likewise with long-term residents of the Island. DERM’s incident reports, which number in the hundreds, show that behaviour leading up to alleged ‘attacks’ primarily consisted of curious or playful juvenile dingo behaviour. Many incident reports show that the ‘attacks’ were not aggressive by commonly accepted standards.

Dingo behaviour is coded as follows:

• A Avoidance or wary
• B Habituated
• C nuisance or problem
• D aggressive
• E Dangerous

The random sample of DERM incident reports are do not necessarily match the set of reports selected for submission to the Chamberlain inquiry – which may only include ‘dangerous’ incidents) show that 68.5% were code C incidents; 17% were code D, and only 11% were code E.

Of the code E incidents described in the reports, only 4% record biting, or attempted biting. In three cases dingoes were destroyed for ‘attempted biting’; t There were two cases of the dingo ‘circling’ a person, and one record where the dingo ‘did not bare its teeth or attempt to bite’.

In many cases of D category incidents, the dingoes were easily scared away, which implies no serious intent to attack. In 23% of C & D incidents, the dingo was noted as ‘non-aggressive’. We submit that, in many cases, the behaviour was merely juvenile play behaviour. This is because, in 100% of reports we studied, the dingoes were under 12 months old.

This is supported by an early Department report which states: ‘nuisance behaviour is usually associated with a juvenile animal’s playful character.’ (Price 1994)

It is disturbing that a large percentage of ‘incidents’ (22%) were instigated by DERM rangers.
To the extent that incidents of dingo aggression on Fraser Island may be treated seriously, it is our view that such aggression reflects the mismanagement and mistreatment of the dingo population, rather than any inherent behavioural tendency in the animal itself.

Forty per cent of the ‘incident’ reports were principally cases of dingo ‘sightings’, recorded as ‘loitering’. The response in 30% of these circumstances was to haze the dingo, or in other cases the dingoes had already previously undergone intense hazing programs. Hazing is shooting a dingo with a clay marble from a sling shot or firing pellets from a 22 rifle. In some cases, the dingoes had undergone aversive therapy using electric shock collars, a practice condemned by the RSPCA.

It is instructive to note what people were doing prior to an alleged attack. For example, people giving food to dingoes to lure them for a photo and then chasing them with sticks when they were sick of them.

DERM’s preferred dingo expert, Dr Laurie Corbett, who is currently cited by DERM in defence of the ‘habituation = aggression’ hypothesis, is quoted in Lionel Hudson’s 1974 publication, Dingoes Don’t Bark, as saying there had been no unprovoked attack on a person by a dingo.

Notwithstanding the dubious characterisation of dingo in alleged attacks on Fraser Island, the degree of responsibility exercised by parents and adults with children in such circumstances has been questionable.

One such incident involved an alleged attack by a dingo on a child on Fraser Island in 2007, where it is claimed that a young girl was attacked near a car loading point on the beach. An affidavit from a barge skipper (who did not witness the incident, but spoke to the people involved) describes his warning to persons at the loading point to stay close to their children. The skipper also described the situation as one where the parents and the child did not seem overly distressed after the incident.

The parents subsequently admitted that they took their eyes of the child for a moment. However, according to witnesses, the child was at least 200 metres away from the parents at the time of the alleged attack.

Hybrids are more aggressive

Dingo expert Laurie Corbett has written that apart from the contamination of the gene pool, hybrids pose more of a threat to the pastoral industry than pure Dingoes do. Female hybrids come into oestrous twice each year, and are capable of killing many more calves than pure dingoes can. Paradoxically they do not eat them. Also, in urban areas, hybrids are probably more dangerous to humans than most pure domestic dog breeds.... At the time of writing, 1995, there had been eight human fatalities caused by “pet” wolf hybrids.

Could it be that the “dingo” that killed Azaria Chamberlain was more likely to have been a hybrid or a wild dog?

Corbett recommended education is the best way to help people understand the Dingos' plight and push for policies to retain the species as part of Australia's national heritage. There should be more "education" on managing human behaviour with regards to dingo interaction on Fraser Island!!

(Corbett, Laurie, Australia Nature, Summer 1995-96, “Dingoes: Expatriate Wolves of Native Dogs?”)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contacts: Radio: Ernest Healy, President NDPRP, [email protected]
Newspaper: Jennifer Parkhurst, Fraser Island Representative NDPRP, [email protected]

The National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program is a non-profit organisation that brings together environmental scientists, conservation organisations and concerned individuals to ensure the protection of the dingo as an integral part of Australian ecosystems. The organisation aims to:
* encourage legislative and government policy change to ensure the protection and survival of the dingo in the wild, and
*inform and educate the public and government as to the cultural, ecological and historical significance of the dingo.