dingo management review

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/

A spokesperson for the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (NDPRP) today,Thursday, August 21st, 2014, expressed concern and disappointment that the Gympie Regional Council appears to have exercised no independence of thought in adopting a ‘Wild Dog’ control plan, which is ill-informed and based largely on prejudice.

NDPRP Secretary, Dr Ernest Healy, stated that the NDPRP is disappointed that the Gympie Regional Council has adopted a ‘wild dog’ control plan with justifications that are either now shown by scientific research to be false or based on a selective, unbalanced consideration of the available scientific evidence. He said that, "In doing so, the Council is perpetuating a misguided and alarmist perspective on ‘wild dogs’, or dingoes, which ignores their importance for health of ecosystems."

He said,

"It is unfortunate that, in adopting the ‘wild dog’ control plan, the Council is taking an extremist position towards dingoes and dingo conservation. This controversy has arisen because of a growing body of environmental research, which highlights the importance of conserving dingo populations (and their hybrids) 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 still largely reflects this historically entrenched pest-animal perspective.

Dr Healy added that it is disappointing that the Gympie Regional Council has adopted a policy framework that obscures the fact that ‘wild dogs’ are native animals. They are dingoes. He said,

‘"A key consideration from a nature conservation point of view is the ecological function of dingo 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."

‘

According to the NDPRP, this approach is supported by the fact that much of the in-the-field research into the role of the dingo in maintaining ecological balance, as a top order predator, has been conducted with populations that were almost certainly hybridised to some degree. There is currently no convincing research to show that the levels of hybridisation that have occurred present a biodiversity risk within Australian ecosystems, as is suggested in the Council’s policy.

While always open to new findings of genuine scientific endeavour, the NDPRP considers that virtually the only environmental scientists in Australia who fundamentally contest the idea that dingo populations provide a net benefit to the health of Australian ecosystems are those closely aligned to, or supported by, the pastoral industry and who are therefore facing a serious conflict of interest.

Dr Healy stated that:

‘‘The NDPRP encourages the Gympie Regional Council to follow the progressive lead of primary industries authorities in Victoria, where ‘wild dogs’, or dingoes, are recognised for their positive environmental role.’

‘

Recent Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries documentation states:

‘‘We regard wild dogs/dingoes as Top Order Carnivores that all healthy ecosystems need, and we will make all attempts to ensure these animals are not targeted [by fox control programs].’ (Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries – Powerpoint Presentation, Southern Ark Project)

‘

Contacts:

Jennifer Parkhurst, Rainbow Breach QLD (Vice President NDPRP)
fidingo[AT]bigpond.net.au

Ernest Healy, (Secretary NDPRP)
email: ernest.healy[AT]monash.edu

President of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program, and animal research ethics expert, Dr Ian Gunn, stated today, Wednesday 20 August, 2014, that the recent destruction of three sub-adult dingoes on Fraser Island for an alleged ‘savage’ attack is a poor reflection upon the new Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service dingo management strategy.

After the recently concluded review of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy, which commenced in 2012 as a result of widespread public concern over the well-being of the Island’s dingo population,

'it is disappointing to find that the old ‘search and destroy’ response by the QPWS is continuing,’ Dr Gunn commented.

A key criticism of the previous dingo management strategy was that the QPWS systematically exaggerated the severity of incidents between dingoes and persons on the Island, resulting in the unnecessary destruction of many dingoes for minor incidents, mostly involving juveniles and sub-adult dingoes. The destruction of dingoes in these circumstances has been of long-standing concern to the NDPRP because QPWS research into the size and age/sex composition of the Fraser Island dingo population has been, and appears still to be, deficient and ad hoc.

‘The continued, incremental destruction of dingoes on Fraser Island is potentially threatening to the longer-term viability of the dingo population, given that the QPWS does not know the numbers of dingoes on the Island, including the number of breeding pairs, with sufficient certainty for good wildlife management’, Dr Gunn said.

While the NDPRP had hoped that the recently-concluded review of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy would improve the quality of the QPWS stewardship of the Island’s dingo population, it is now disappointed to find management falling back upon previous practices, which had little regard for conservation outcomes.

Dr Gunn highlighted the cautionary tone of the 2009 Audit of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy by Dingo expert, Dr Laurie Corbett, who stressed population data collection as,

‘... vital in estimating the current size and distribution of the Island dingo population, and thus
assessment of whether or not dingo numbers have been culled below a naturally sustainable level. (FIDMS Audit, 2009, p. 9)

Independence of Queensland Liberal National Party Government Fraser Is. Dingo management policy review has been questioned by the SFID. Why is previous management involved in review of its own record? SFID believes there are a number of high-profile and more suitable ecologists in Australia with experience more directly relevant to dingo conservation who could and should have been recruited to the policy review. The history of dingo management on Fraser Island has been disgraceful.

Queensland Environment Minister Andrew Powell naive choice of Dingo review team

The Save the Fraser Island Dingo Incorporation (SFID) today expressed bewilderment and concern in its strong belief that the recently elected Queensland LNP government’s initiative to conduct a genuinely independent review of the failed Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy already seems to have been compromised.

SFID has lobbied for years for an independent review of the current dingo management policy, which has been an ongoing disgrace and international embarrassment under the previous Bligh Labor government.

SFID’s concern relates to the engagement of two expert advisors to the dingo policy review process, who SFID strongly believes cannot be reasonably considered to be at ‘arms length’ in evaluating the current policy.

Contrary to the public commitment of the Queensland Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Andrew Powell, that the policy review would be rigorous and independent, the consultancy firm, EcoSure, hired by the Queensland government to conduct the review, engaged Dr Lee Allen as a keynote speaker for a public workshop, held at Maryborough on Friday 5 October as part of the review process.

Why is previous management leading review of its own record?

By no reasonable, commonly-accepted standard could Dr Allen be considered an independent participant. He has been acknowledged and thanked on several occasions during the term of the Beattie/Bligh Labor governments for his contribution to the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy or for input into research conducted as part of that strategy.

While not questioning Dr Allen’s expertise, his engagement as a keynote speaker at the public workshop, SFID believes, is a contradiction of the Minister’s commitment to a thoroughly independent review process. This belief is underscored by the fact that Dr Allen’s comments to the public workshop could be easily interpreted as an endorsement of the current policy, and thereby potentially influencing attendees whose opinions the workshop was designed to take into account.

Father-son team structure seems too subjective

It is also of concern that Dr Lee Allen’s son, Ben Allen, an expert in dingo ecology, has been engaged by EcoSure, to participate in the Fraser Island Dingo Management review. Again, there is no question concerning Ben Allen’s professional competency. The objection, rather, is that he would be in a potentially conflictual position in evaluating material gathered at the October 5th review workshop, and written submissions to the review, if involved in drafting EcoSure’s report to the Minister. If Ben Allen were to be involved in this part of the policy review, he would be charged with evaluating submission material critical of the current policy, and research conducted under the auspices of the current policy, that his own father has been associated with. Regardless of qualifications and experience, anyone in such circumstances could be placed in a position of conflict of interest. EcoSure should simply not have engaged someone with the possibility of being placed in a position of conflict of interest.

The consultancy firm, EcoSure, ought also be aware that Dr Lee Allen and Ben Allen have recently jointly published contentious material in a professional journal on the state dingo conservation research in Australia, which makes it clear that their views are substantially similar. It is of significant concern that the careers of Dr Lee Allen and Ben Allen have, we believe, been more focused upon dingo control than dingo conservation. This issue is central to the integrity of the review because one major criticism of the current Fraser Island dingo management policy is that it is being implemented as a de facto dingo control policy, rather than a conservation policy.

Review lacks diverse scientific representation

SFID believes there are a number of high-profile and more suitable ecologists in Australia with experience more directly relevant to dingo conservation who could and should have been recruited to the policy review, with experience more directly relevant to dingo conservation. If a more diverse range of expert opinion had been brought to bear upon the review process, the outcome could have been enriched. The current review process potentially represents a missed opportunity.

SFID calls upon the Minister and the Chair of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy Review Steering Committee, Professor Possingham, to intervene to ensure that review submission material is evaluated objectively and that the Minister’s public commitment to a genuinely independent policy review process is upheld.

Source: Media release from Save the Fraser Island Dingo (Inc.), October 25, 2012