Animals - Dingo
Wild Dog (canis lupus familiaris, canis lupus dingo and hybrids)
Introduction
The term “wild dog“ applies to two sub-species of canid; the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) and the feral domestic dog (C. l. familiaris) and hybrids of the two (Fleming et al. 2001). Dingoes have inhabited Australia for about 4000 years, long enough to become a functional part of the natural ecological system as a top order predator (Corbett 1995, Fleming et al. 2001). In view of their ecological importance, dingoes are regarded under Northern Territory legislation as native wildlife. This status affords the dingo full legal protection, making it an offence to possess, interfere with, or kill dingoes unless authorised to do so under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (2000) (TPWCA).
Domestic dogs were introduced to the Northern Territory with European settlement and populations of feral domestic dogs and dingo/domestic dog hybrids are known to exist in the vicinity of human habitation (Corbett 1995, Eldridge et al. 2002).
There are a number of negative or undesirable impacts associated with dingoes and other wild dogs. They are known predators of livestock and they can cause significant economic losses to pastoral production. They are also known to prey upon domestic livestock on rural blocks and they can be a menace to tourists and staff at remote tourist resorts and national parks. Furthermore, they can have an impact on the survival of remnant populations of endangered fauna. Ongoing population management is required to control these impacts, but at the same time, ensure the long-term persistence of dingoes in the wild. Feral domestic dogs and hybrids are potentially a lot more dangerous to humans and livestock and efforts are required to restrict the hybridisation process.
Background
Origin and Distribution
The dingo (Canis lupus dingo Meyer 1793) was brought to Australia from southern Asia approximately 4000 years ago by Asian seafarers (Fleming et al. 2001). After their introduction, dingoes dispersed rapidly throughout the continent, aided by Aboriginal people who developed strong cultural associations with them, using dingoes for companionship and to hunt game (Corbett 1995). Wild dingo populations became established across all of mainland Australia and the species became a key functional component of the natural ecosystem (Fleming et al. 2001). The dingo never became established in Tasmania.
After European settlement, predation of livestock (particularly sheep) by dingoes prompted broadscale efforts to remove dingoes from areas of intensive primary production and by the late 1800s, all states and territories had enacted legislation to facilitate and administer the control of dingoes (Breckwoldt 1988). By the early 1900s, barrier fences had been constructed to exclude dingoes from sheep producing districts which in combination with trapping, poisoning, and land clearing resulted in dingoes becoming extinct over much of their previous range in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia (Fleming et al. 2001).
Feral Domestic dog populations quickly became established in Australia after European settlement (Fleming et al. 2001), especially in agricultural areas where dingo populations had been severely reduced by control efforts. Continual hybridisation between domestic dogs and dingoes has led to the current situation in eastern and southern Australia where over 50 % of the wild dog population are hybrids (Newsome and Corbett 1982).
Wild dog control measures in the Northern Territory have been far less intensive than in other States and Territories, and there has been little or no change in the distribution of dingoes. This is largely because livestock production has been restricted mainly to cattle which are less susceptible to dingo predation than sheep (Fleming and Korn 1989; Fleming et al. 2001). It is thought that over 90 % of Northern Territory wild dogs are pure dingoes, with hybrid and feral domestic dogs occurring mainly in the vicinity of human habitation.
Abundance
Wild dogs are common throughout the Northern Territory with the exception of the Tanami Desert where they are relatively sparse due to the lack of available drinking water. However, localised concentrations of dingoes do exist in this region where watering points have been introduced, such as on pastoral properties, in mining areas and near areas of human habitation.
Impacts
Wild dogs have significant impacts on agricultural production through predation of livestock. Throughout Australia, sheep are the most commonly attacked livestock followed by cattle and goats (Fleming et al. 2001). In the Northern Territory, livestock production is limited to cattle. Cattle are most vulnerable to wild dog attack at the calf and weaner stage, although protective behaviour by the cow can be sufficient to deter attacks. Therefore, the likelihood of wild dog attack is also dependent on the health and condition of adult cattle and their capacity to protect their calves (Fleming et al. 2001). Furthermore, livestock predation has been found to depend on seasonal conditions, increasing when the availability of alternative prey is low (Thomson 1992, Corbett 1995).
Wild dogs are also implicated in the spread of disease such as hydatidosis in cattle and sheep, and heartworm and parvovirus in pet domestic dogs. Hydatidosis leads to the condemnation of offal from slaughtered abattoir cattle in affected areas and has the potential to cause significant economic losses.
There are few reliable estimates of the true economic cost of wild dogs, but the most recent estimate comes from Queensland where wild dogs are estimated to cost the state over $30 million per year in stock losses, disease spread by wild dogs and control costs. Stock losses alone were estimated at over $18 million. Northern Territory pastoralists responding to a questionnaire survey conducted by the Parks and Wildlife Service in 1995 estimated that 1.6 to 7.1% of stock losses were attributable to wild dogs (depending on district), calculated to be worth $13.5 million at the time (Eldridge and Bryan 1995).
Although there are few benefits associated with feral domestic dogs and hybrids, there are several advantages in maintaining wild populations of pure dingoes in the Northern Territory. Firstly, dingoes have become an important part of the natural ecological system in Australia as a top order predator. They eat a diverse range of species and they are known to keep several native species under control that could otherwise be pests, such as kangaroos and wallabies (Caughley et al. 1980, Edwards et al. 1995, Pople et al. 2000). They also prey upon introduced pest species such as rabbits, foxes and feral cats which helps to keep their numbers in check (e.g. Jarman 1986).
Secondly, the dingo is a highly social animal. Although they are usually seen alone, most individuals belong to discrete packs that occupy and defend distinct territories year round. They usually only come together as a pack during the breeding season to mate and rear pups (Corbett 1995). Packs have highly developed male and female hierarchies and breeding is usually only successful between the dominant pair. Subordinate pack members are actively prevented from breeding by the dominant pair (Fleming et al. 2001). This pack structure can be broken down under intensive baiting regimes, which allows successful breeding between subordinate pairs and a greater population growth rate. A lack of pack structure also means that territories are not being adequately defended which allows the spread of feral and hybrid dogs. Hybrids can breed twice a year, there are no social restrictions to breeding like there is in the dingo, and they are poorer predators than pure dingoes and tend to prey more heavily on livestock.
Thirdly, the dingo is classified as protected wildlife under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (2000), in recognition of its ecological importance. Cross-breeding with domestic dogs represents a significant threat to the long-term persistence of pure dingoes in Australia. The level of hybridisation in dingo populations in south-eastern Australia has become so great that the dingo is currently under consideration for endangered species listing under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In contrast to this, the genetic integrity of dingoes in the Northern Territory remains intact, affording them significant conservation value.
Past and Current Management
As was the case elsewhere in Australia, the threat of livestock predation has meant that dingoes in the Northern Territory have been the target of sustained control since pastoralism began. Initially, dingo control was conducted opportunistically by individual pastoralists, although some are known to have employed people specifically to eradicate dogs from their properties. Organised control of dingoes began with the introduction of the Dingo Destruction Ordinance in July 1924 which was administered by the then Animal Industry and Agriculture Branch (Stephens 1969). Professional ‘doggers’ were employed to destroy dingoes on pastoral land and a bounty system was established to encourage landholders to conduct their own control. By 1969, there were six dogger positions in the Northern Territory and bounties of $2 per scalp were being paid (Stephens 1969). Steel jaw traps and strychnine baits were the main control methods used.
The first reported broad-scale dingo control exercise occurred in 1966 when an aerial baiting campaign was conducted in the Victoria River Downs (VRD) district using strychnine baits. By the mid-1970s, sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) had replaced strychnine as the preferred poison for dingo control due to its specificity to canids and apparent safety in regard to non-target wildlife. Its popularity amongst pastoralists grew rapidly and by 1979, 80 % of all Northern Territory pastoral properties had been involved with 1080 aerial baiting programs. By this time, some sections of the community were beginning to raise concerns that dingo numbers had decreased to such low levels that they were in danger of localised extinction. A moratorium on 1080 aerial baiting was proposed but was rejected by the Northern Territory Government following representation from the pastoral industry (Honner 1983). Ultimately, the government responded by transferring responsibility for the dingo baiting program to the then Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (CCNT) to improve operational efficiency and curtail unlimited aerial baiting. By 1983, CCNT was responsible for the dingo baiting program throughout the entire Northern Territory (Honner 1983). Poisons such as Strychnine and Lucijet became banned substances and permits to possess 1080 were available only to selected CCNT staff. Baiting was conducted only in response to pastoralists reporting stock damage and aerial baiting was discouraged unless vehicle access to the target area was not possible, or unless dingo damage was particularly heavy and widespread (R. Bryan, pers. comm. 2002).
Since that time, the responsibility for dingo management has remained with the Parks and Wildlife Service of the Northern Territory (formerly CCNT), and 1080 baiting has continued to be the principal technique employed for dingo control. Current baiting procedure uses non-refined fresh meat baits (400g beef, horse, donkey or camel meat) delivering 6 mg 1080 per bait. Baits are distributed by vehicle (and, in some cases, aircraft) to areas frequented by dingoes including water points, roads and tracks. The program restricts the number of baits laid at any one location to thirty. 1080 is recognised as the safest and most efficient way of controlling canids as they are extremely susceptible to this poison with only a very small amount required to kill a dog (0.3mg per kg). Mixed correctly, with the right sized bait, it is also reasonably "target specific".
Dingoes have occasionally become a nuisance outside pastoral areas. For example, they are known to prey upon domestic livestock on rural blocks and they can be a menace to tourists and staff at remote tourist resorts and national parks. Alternative methods to poison-baiting are used in these areas. These include trapping, exclusion fencing and shooting. Dingo control in these areas is the responsibility of the relevant town council or resort owner, although the Parks & Wildlife Service provides advice on strategies for control.
The Parks and Wildlife Service has recently developled a management program for the dingo in the Northern Territory.
Principles
| Principle | Rationale |
| 1. Manage Actual Impacts | Managed impact must be actual, not perceived, and should be quantified prior to action. Management should focus on reducing impact, not reducing numbers |
| 2. Conservation of Pure Dingoes | The dingo is protected wildlife in the Northern Territory and has significant conservation value. Maintaining viable wild population of pure dingoes will also limit livestock predation and other negative impacts associated with wild dogs |
| 3. Strategic Management | For maximum effectiveness, management programs should be strategic in terms of area of control and timing. They should be developed for the long-term (one-off exercises should be avoided) and they should employ a combination of techniques |
| 4. Public Awareness and Involvement | Consultation and involvement of all stakeholders is necessary to achieve an ongoing collaborative approach to wild dog management. Public awareness of issues relating to wild dogs and their impacts is required to maintain community support for wild dog control |
| 5. Benefit to Exceed Cost | A management program will be uneconomical if costs are outweighed by benefits. Although it is often difficult to quantify environmental benefits associated with wild dog control, proposed programs should be analysed to ensure they will result in net benefit |
| 6. Monitoring & Evaluation | Operational monitoring is required to monitor program costs and performance monitoring is required to measure program effectiveness and ensure objectives are being achieved |
| 7. Targeted Research | Management programs require an ongoing research component to improve current knowledge relating to the ecology, impacts and control of wild dogs. This will enable the ongoingdevelopment of best-practice management |
| 8. Adaptive Management | Management will be flexible, responding to measured changes in econmic, envionmental and pest circumstances identified by the monitoring and evaluation components of the program. Management will also respond to the results of targeted research and programs wil be adapted as new information becomes available |
| 9. Animal Welfare | Techniques used to manage wild dogs should be as humane as possible |
Objective, Actions and Milestones
| Objective | Acions | Milestones |
| 1. Maintain viable wild population of pure dingoes | 1.1 Discourage broadscale preventative control and focus on problem dogs and problem areas in problem years |
2007 Investigate potential for using shelf-stable manufactured wild dogs to enable land managers to carry out opportunistic control |
1.2 Limit the number of baits laid to prevent complete eradication |
2006-2016 Limit of 30 poison baits per target location |
|
1.3 No control in parks, reserves and other non-agricultural land unless predator management is prescribed by management recommendations for other native fauna |
2006-2016 Essential control in conservation areas and non-agricultural land |
|
| 1.4 Assess current genetic status of NT wild dogs, monitor and take action to prevent hybridisation where required. | 2008 Genetic assessment of NT wild dog population | |
| 2. Implement best-practice, innovative and humane wild dog management to mitigate livestock predation, reduce the threat to humans of wild dog attack and to promote the survival of endangered native fauna | 2.1 Focus wild dog management activities on recognised best practice techniques |
2006-2016 Livestock predation, human interaction and predation of endangered fauna managed effectively |
| 2.2 Target research to promote ongoing development of best-practice management. | 2007 Research priorities determined | |
| 3. Manage Community Attitude & Awareness | 3.1 Community communication channels will be identified and used to distribute information relating to wild dog management |
2006-2016 Increased community support, ownership and involvement in wild dog management programs |
| 3.2 Maintain awareness amongst land managers of best practice wild dog management | 2006-2016 Constant flow of information to land managers relating to current best practice wild dog management | |
| 3.3 Update existing NT Government Agnotes and Fact Sheets relating to wild dog management | 2006-2016 Extension documents will contain current information |
|
| 3.4 Identify and address training needs of staff involved in wild dog management | 2006-2016 Appropriate levels of staff training and accreditation | |
| 4. Monitor and Evaluate Managment Program | 4.1 Develop a framework for monitoring and reporting outcomes of the management program | 2006-2016 Produce and distribute an annual report |
| 4.2 Undertake cost-benefit analysis to ensure the program achieves a net benefit | 2006-2016 Present analysis results in annual report | |
| 5. Ensure Compliane with Current NT Legislation | 5.1 Maintain working knowledge of current legislation relating to protected wildlife, poisons use and animal welfare | 2006-2016 Management program consistent with current legislation |
