What are your thoughts on the revised policy on the management of wild dogs in South Australia?

Now Closed

This online engagement was hosted on YourSAy from 10 February to 17 April 2020. Find out more about the consultation process. Below is a record of the engagement.

 

We want to hear your feedback on the revised policy on the management of wild dogs in South Australia.

Read the revised Declared Animal Policy (Wild dogs and dingoes), the proposed changes and the Frequently Asked Questions and provide your feedback by commenting below.

Your feedback will be considered by PIRSA, NRM boards, and the Minister for Environment and Water and will inform the development of the final version of the policy.

Comments closed

Evy Goulding

17 Apr 2020

I'm am disgusted that S.A want to poison Dingos. So cruel. After what happened with that policeman stoning that Wombat, (sickening) I would think South Australia would want to fix up its reputation about animal cruelty. Do better.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Evy Goulding

17 Apr 2020

Hello Evy

Thanks for your comment and perspective. Your feedback will be considered in the review of the policy for wild dogs.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Sandra Shrubb

17 Apr 2020

1080 baiting of any wildlife should be banned. It’s unethical and indiscriminate. Isn’t it about time dingoes and other wildlife be appreciated for their roles in the maintenance of the environment. After all they’re been here in Australia a lot longer than white colonialists - we haven’t adapted very well to this environment, it’s a bit like if it moves kill it but instead why not try to understand the many roles wildlife in this unique environment.

Lynda Loades > Sandra Shrubb

17 Apr 2020

Indeed our wildlife is unique and should be treasured.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Sandra Shrubb

17 Apr 2020

Hi Sandra

Thanks for your comment and perspective. Please refer to previous replies re 1080 and off target species.

Your feedback will be considered in the review of the policy for wild dogs.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Sarah Pietsch

17 Apr 2020

1080 is a cruel and barbaric killer, causing a slow painful death to those it is inflicted on and should be completely outlawed

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Sarah Pietsch

17 Apr 2020

Hi Sarah

Thanks for your comment and perspective. Please refer to previous replies re 1080.

Your feedback will be considered in the review of the policy for wild dogs.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Anne Mulvey

17 Apr 2020

1080 is a cruel punishment. Why do we have a different welfare standard for “wild” or feral animals than pets and farm animals?

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Anne Mulvey

17 Apr 2020

Hello Anne

Thanks for your comment and perspective. Please refer to previous replies re 1080.

Your feedback will be considered in the review of the policy for wild dogs.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Owen OXley

17 Apr 2020

This is feral cruel behaviour that needs to stop

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Owen OXley

17 Apr 2020

Good afternoon Owen

Thank you for your comment. Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Erika Salna

17 Apr 2020

I am opposed to use of 1080 in wildlife management. Extremely cruel treatment.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Erika Salna

17 Apr 2020

Good afternoon Erika

Thank you for your comment. Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Trudi Cole

17 Apr 2020

I am opposed to the poisoning of any animal in the wild or anywhere it is cruel and I wonder who is supposed to benefit from this type of activity

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Trudi Cole

17 Apr 2020

Hi Trudi

Thanks for your comment and perspective. Your feedback will be considered in the review of the policy for wild dogs.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Urs Longhurst

17 Apr 2020

When are we going to understand that an animal values their life just as much as a human being does. At this present point in time we live in trepidation of a tiny virus destroying our lifestyle and bringing death to ourselves or our loved ones and yet we are only too quick to inflict the same (in the form of poison) onto another species.
The solution to a problem should never be death....that is the quick and lazy option...instead we should be Respecting our environment, Planning how to protect it for all species and Adjusting our management to encompass a free from harm way of living for all

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Urs Longhurst

17 Apr 2020

Hi Urs

Thanks for your comment and perspective. Your feedback will be considered in the review of the policy for wild dogs.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Tracey Newman

17 Apr 2020

I cannot believe in this day and age knowing all we do about biodiversity and the value of native animals and the horrible impact of baiting on the environment this is seriously being considered. 1080 is incredibly cruel and indiscriminate. if the environment cannon support sheep then perhaps we need to reconsider farming practices instead.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Tracey Newman

17 Apr 2020

Hi Tracey

Thank you for your comment. Please refer to previous replies re 1080.

Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Eleni Sarantou

17 Apr 2020

This is incredibly cruel. Not only will this have an impact on wild dog populations but thousands of other native and endangered species. Usage of 1080 poison is incredibly selfish.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Planning Officer > Eleni Sarantou

17 Apr 2020

Hello Eleni

Thank you for your comment. Please refer to previous replies re 1080.

Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Michael Dello-Iacovo

17 Apr 2020

1080 poisoning results in an unimaginably painful and cruel death. Visible symptoms of ingesting the poison include vomiting, anxiety, disorientation and shaking. The baits will be consumed by a range of native animals as well as dingoes. We should instead be considering non-lethal population control methods such as immunocontraceptives applied through either food pellets or darting to sterilise the dingoes, reducing their population size. This is a more viable long term solution to any ecological concerns. I strongly urge the government to not condemn dingoes or other animals to cruel and painful deaths.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Michael Dello-Iacovo

17 Apr 2020

Good afternoon Michael

Thank you for your comment. Please refer to previous replies re 1080 and immunocontraceptives.

Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Animal Justice Party South Australia

17 Apr 2020

The dingo has a significant ecological and cultural role and is a valuable part of the ecosystem. The proposed revised Policy is driven by the economic impact of dingoes on cattle and sheep producers as opposed to ecological considerations.

The current scientific consensus is that increasing dingo numbers is essential to protect what little biodiversity remains. Dingoes provide a natural way to limit the populations of native herbivores, introduced foxes, and wild cats. This in turn improves the health of native plant communities and small native animals. The suppression of dingoes is directly linked with the endangerment and extinction of small marsupials and rodents over much of the continent. At present, there are no protected areas for dingoes in South Australia.

The proposed approach reinforces the notion that the dingo is a pest. Dingoes should be differentiated from other wild-living dogs and given legislative protection together with control measures being limited to non-lethal controls. The proposals include the baiting of wild dogs ‘within a 35 kilometre wide buffer zone along the outside of the [Dog] Fence.’ No justification is given for this distance. With the advent of a new Dog Fence it is considered that such measures appear arbitrary and contrary to the proposition of maintaining the cultural role of wild dogs in lands outside the dog fence.

The proposals for managing wild dogs and the overarching Wild Dog Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020 fail to give sufficient weight and consideration to the status of dingoes. While the Vision of the Plan recognises the ecological and cultural roles of the dingo, such a significant consideration is not reflected by a supporting Goal in the Plan.

The treatment of all animals, regardless of their origin, should be humane with numbers controlled by non-lethal measures. Glue traps, leg traps and steel jaw traps should be banned, research into non-lethal population control methods should be supported, lethal biological and chemical controls, such as the use of 1080 poison, should be banned and replaced with non-lethal techniques, including immunocontraception and other emerging technologies.

A holistic approach is needed to manage the perceived problems of dingoes and wild dogs. Land management practices, particularly on Aboriginal lands and in the outback generally, should seek to support land management and acquisition to protect and conserve wildlife habitats, re-wild portions of land once used for animal agriculture and encourage increased growth and support for wildlife-based tourism, while closing down industries and activities that harm wildlife.

Together with the distinction of dingoes from other categories of wild (feral) dogs, the issue of feral animals should be examined and dealt with collectively, rather than by wild dogs, cats, goats or other categories. Any review of the effectiveness of the measures to manage wild dogs by Biosecurity SA should incorporate publicly known KPIs that include moves to more humane methods of control.

The proposed revised Policy appears to be strongly motivated by the ‘once-in-a-generation $25 million rebuild of the dog fence and effective strategies to remove wild dogs from inside the fence’. Any changes to the management of wild dogs in this State should be more holistic in approach, better recognise the ecological and cultural significance of the dingo to Australia, and deal with the issue of number and impacts of wild dogs in a humane manner that moves society towards the treatment of all animals with respect, dignity, compassion and kindness.

Lynda Loades > Animal Justice Party South Australia

17 Apr 2020

Humans are the pest.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Animal Justice Party South Australia

17 Apr 2020

To the Animal Justice Party of South Australia

Thank you for your considered thoughts in the public consultation process of the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

There are many papers on the value of wild dogs in the environment, but there are many others that draw opposing conclusions. The distribution and abundance of dingoes have increased across Australia since Europeans introduced additional waters and prey. As a result, all of our introduced species, including wild dogs/dingoes, need to be managed.

South Australian legislation defines wild dogs as wild-living dogs, including dingoes, domestic dogs living at large and their hybrids. It would be a misnomer if we were to describe wild dogs as dingoes, because so many wild dogs are hybrids, or pure bred domestic dogs gone wild, including staffies, fox terriers, wolf hounds, kelpies and cattle dogs. All wild living dogs, including dingoes and their hybrids, damage and kill livestock in the same way. It is both irrelevant and impossible for people controlling wild dogs to determine whether a wild dog is a purebred dingo or a hybrid.

Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Animal Justice Party South Australia > Animal Justice Party South Australia

17 Apr 2020

Thank you for your reply.

Our comprehensive submission emailed to PIRSA contains the citations for those studies which support the scientific consensus that dingoes have a beneficial impact on the environment. The fact that the distribution and abundance of dingoes has increased since Europeans and the introduction of non-native animals is persuasive evidence of their beneficial impact on the management of Australia's biodiversity.

If it would be a misnomer (a wrong or inaccurate name or designation) to name dingoes wild dogs, why then does the legislation include them in the definition of wild dogs?

It would be incorrect to state that our submission requires the management / control (a.k.a. the destruction) of wild dogs as relating only to dingoes. Our submission is opposed to the destruction of all wild dogs - as the legislation has defined them. Irrespective of whether a dog is a wild-living domestic or a dingo or a hybrid of the two, the use of lethal control or management methods should be banned.

The options are available and should be explored - especially given the failure of lethal control / management methods to date.

Kim Palfrey

17 Apr 2020

I write to comment on proposed changes to the Wild Dog Management policy.
With respect to the repair and ongoing maintenance of the Dog Fence, I am in total agreement as this should have always been a key plank of the policy. However, I am opposed to all the proposed measures associated with baiting as it is expensive, inefficient, indiscriminate, unethical and cruel.

A review of the content of this policy, confirms that it is not about control, rather eradication of Dingoes. The policy mandates that landowners must distribute baits in accordance with the policy whether or not they have any Dingo activity on their property, and must continue with an ongoing baiting program irrespective of any evidence of any Dingo activity. This seems irrationally excessive given that Dingoes are not an introduced species, and not a “Wild Dog”, they are an Australian native animal, and as such should be respected as part of our heritage. It also ignores the fact that a significant amount of other native wildlife are effected a the same time. Whilst accepting the fact that graziers are entitled to protect their assets, they are not entitled to demand the destruction of our wildlife, as has been the case to in the past. Surely Dingoes should at least be afforded some protection, if only in our National Parks? Control measures can be accepted, hunting to extinction is an unwarranted and an unethical excess.

The Government must also consider their position where on one hand they are advocating and facilitating wholesale destruction of a native species as per this policy, but appear to be less inclined to do anything about the feral goat infestation which appears to be of similar magnitude (at least numerically). So why are feral goats allowed to destroy natural flora and run loose even in our National Parks, while baiting programs with catastrophic consequences on our native wildlife continue to receive Government approval? Given the recent debacle over the proposed Wombat cull on Yorke Peninsular, I would think that some reflection on future animal control measure and the associated consequences be mandatory.

The fact that baiting, particularly aerial baiting, is expensive needs no further comment, but whether the costs are justified is the issue. Accordingly, one must ask, how is it that after more than seventy years of state facilitated baiting programs, there are supposedly more Dingoes than ever requiring more intervention? This brings into question on how cost effective is the program, how is the data that is being used to justify the policy collected, how is it validated, and by whom?

On the matter of the cruelty of the use of this poison, once again numerous studies and firsthand anecdotal evidence of the dreadful death that the 1080 baits produce, with animals taking in excess of two hours and longer to die a horrendous death should be enough to have it banned. Even a cursory glance at the various government websites on the use of 1080 advises the danger to all animals (including more than 48 native bird species alone). It should therefore be questioned why Australia is one of the few users of 1080 poison when it is banned in most countries around the world, especially when other poisons such as PAPP are available that are dramatically less cruel than 1080.

The solution in the immediate term is to immediately cease the use of 1080, and to commence the reinstatement of the original control system of mesh exclusion fences which were largely removed when graziers switched from sheep to cattle after the decline of the wool industry in the1990’s. Success stories from NSW and Qld should at least prompt interest in alternative fencing options that offer more permanent solutions. Whilst fencing is expensive and hasn’t completely replaced baiting elsewhere, it does provide a more permanent solution in the protection for the Sheep industry from dingoes. It also overcomes the problem of other animal incursions e.g. camels, goats, kangaroos etc., and the need to carpet bomb areas with poisonous substances.

As a final point, whilst some sheep grazier’s may be unconcerned about the cruelty of its application, and/or the impact on other native wildlife, it should be noted that there is a growing community opposition to the use of 1080 baiting, and a general acknowledgement that the Dingo is part of Australia’s native wildlife. This opposition should be noted, as it is pertinent to remember that other industries such as mining and manufacturing now require a social licence to operate, and that time is coming very soon for Agriculture. It is also incumbent upon Government Departments to explain why they would choose to support and enforce something as ethically unacceptable as baiting rather than encouraging and facilitating options that are more environmentally and financially viable instead.

Koki Reign > Kim Palfrey

17 Apr 2020

Hi Mrs Palfrey, my name is Koki, I am thirteen and I am doing a research block on ecology.
I am reading other peoples perspectives here and wonder if you could please tell me where I find the research on the other poison you mention here PAPP - I have found a site but it says it is the same as 1080

"Products containing PAPP have been approved for use by the APVMA (January 2016) and are now available from ACTA, under the product names DOGABAIT and FOXECUTE®.
Bait availability in each State or Territory is subject to the same controls as 1080 baits (restricted S7 classification)

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Kim Palfrey

17 Apr 2020

Hello Kim

Thank you for your comments on the proposed changes to the SA Wild Dog Policy.

South Australian legislation defines wild dogs as wild-living dogs, including dingoes, domestic dogs living at large and their hybrids. It would be a misnomer if we were to describe wild dogs as dingoes, because so many wild dogs are hybrids, or pure bred domestic dogs gone wild, including staffies, fox terriers, wolf hounds, kelpies and cattle dogs. All wild living dogs, including dingoes and their hybrids, damage and kill livestock in the same way. It is both irrelevant and impossible for people controlling wild dogs to determine whether a wild dog is a purebred dingo or a hybrid.

There is no threat from 1080 baiting, used to control wild dogs, foxes and feral cats, to all of the populations of native animals that have been studied, including 29 species of native birds, 7 species of native reptiles and amphibians and 44 species of native mammals (including carnivorous marsupials such as the Spotted Tail Quoll). Many Australian native animals are tolerant to 1080 because over 30 Australian native plants naturally produce sodium fluoroacetate which is found in 1080 baits and the synthetically manufactured 1080 is identical to, and retains all the properties of, the natural sodium fluoroacetate poison found in these Australian native plants. 1080 is highly soluble and biodegradable. This means it breaks down in water, soil and in carcasses over time (in hot, humid weather, it only takes a few days) and has limited impact on the environment.

Your comments will be compiled and taken into consideration during the review process.

Kind regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Kim Palfrey > Kim Palfrey

17 Apr 2020

Thanks for your comments Heather,
However there are dissenting views on the collateral impact of 1080 on native wildlife, some contained in CSIRO Publcation Wildlife Research. Also the tolerance by some native animals to 1080 due to similar plant substances in their locale, is generally confined to the SW of WA. Irrespective of our differing opinions, I respectfully request that serious consideration be given to the views expressed herein that do not accord with what appears to be a foregone decision to proceed with this policy despite the opposition expressed to baiting.

Kim Palfrey > Kim Palfrey

17 Apr 2020

Hello Koki
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. In response to your question, there are various websites that discuss the differences between 1080 and PAPP poisons, but the most concise answer is on the RSPCA Site which has a good commentary on this topic. Essentially the difference lies in the way the poison works to the kill the animal is the most significant. PAPP reduces the amount of oxygen in the animals blood , and it gradually slips into unconsciousness and death, as opposed to 1080 which reduces the energy to tissue and cells causing extreme pain and anxiety. Neither PAPP nor 1080 is good in my view , but iPAPP affords a less horrendous death for the animal. Unfortunately, it is not favoured by graziers, because there are limitations on its use, and cannot be aerially delivered (hence my preference on all counts). Trusting this helped but let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Koki Reign

16 Apr 2020

I am thirteen years old and would like to make some points for your feedback.

Part of my study block this term was for ecology, during this time, I have researched the balance of animals and land. I saw an article online that says the South Australain Government is fixing the 100 year old fence that was made to keep out some animals and protect farmers.
I think that is a good and clever thing that was done 100 years ago, but I have a couple of questions because the report said:
- It is to stop animals coming across looking for food and water.
- It is to protect sheep (which feed our country and others)
- You are going make people bait (which I now know is poison) wild dogs, to stop them eating sheep.

Over the last two months, I have done alot of research online (which is how I found this feedback offer) and made alot of phone calls. I know we have been using sheep since we took over here and I was interested to know:

- Is it fair to stop animals trying to have food and water?
- Why is it OK for one animal type(sheep) to have all the food and water and not other animals?
- I understand how sad farmers get when something eats their sheep, but it is nature. Carnivors eat meat and hunting and eating meat is part of nature.
- It would make a bad balance if there was only one type of animal in a whole area. That is how an eco system works, it cannot be just one thing.
- Wild dogs, sound scary. But when I did my research and even here it seems this is a trick. Changing their name to make it sound scary is really cheating isn't it?
I have read the notes here from the BioSecurity Officer for Pest Animals.
Changing the law to make Dingos have a new name is cheating and it is not fair.
- Making people bait. Posion was tricky to research because you get a different answer from different people. It seems to me that if the poison can kill a dog or a person, it is silly to say it won't kill other native animals because they are immune to it.
I found studies from scientists that say native animals are immune because the poison is found in plants (do they eat the poison plants?)
and other studies from scientists that say this is not true and it might just take longer for these animals to die from the poison.
All of the studies say they don't die straight away and it hurts them alot.
This is nasty and I am sure there are laws to stop people being cruel and nasty to animals so this should not be allowed.
- If you make farmers use poison to manage sheep that we eat, I think that is like poisoning us only we don't get to know about it. For that reason I don't want to eat sheep or lamb if this goes ahead.

- It seems to me that some farmers are already poisoning is that right?
- How do we get to know that the meat we eat has come from somewhere that has been poisoned?

- Thankyou for letting people have a say. I also wonder here, if this is a bit like the teachers at primary school who do a class vote.
They want an outcome but let you have a secret vote. When you tally the answers from the other kids in your class after the vote - sometimes it is different. So the teacher can just make you think you had a vote because they can say whatever answer they want.

The report and the Principal BioSecurity Officer here, say that you have already decided that you want to kill all Dingos so the sheep can live, then be shorn or killed by the farmer for food to sell.

This was the report http://theleadsouthaustralia.com.au/industries/regional-showcase/sa-dog-fence-virtual-makeover/
There was lots of research papers so if you would like to know which ones I can put some here if you ask.

Koki Reign > Koki Reign

17 Apr 2020

I have another question please - I looked at the fence line on Google Earth, what a big job that must have been and very cool to let everyone see.

Are sheep stations in the dessert?

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Koki Reign

17 Apr 2020

Hi Koki

Thank you for all your questions and interest in the control of wild dogs, the sheep industry and baiting in South Australia.

With limited time to reply to your thoughts and questions individually here, I encourage you to email pirsa.wilddogpolicy@sa.gov.au where I will be able to give you more detailed answers and direct you to websites that might help with your questions (and any others) next week.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Jennifer treloar

16 Apr 2020

The rebuild of the dog fence is imperative for the future of the sheep and cattle industry in South Australia. We have property with the dog fence as part of its northern boundary, and the fence is in a deplorable condition. Despite many hours mending the fence,continual shooting, trapping and baiting, our sheep losses[and neighbours] have been horrendous.As a result we have had to totally destock this property .It is most important that the fence be erected as soon as possible, and that all landholders continue baiting and trapping.The dogs have already starting moving south into the farming country,so immediate action is required before the sheep industry is decimated.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Planning Officer > Jennifer treloar

17 Apr 2020

Hi Jennifer

Thank you for your considered and on ground knowledge of wild dog management and control in the public consultation process of the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy. Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Chris Scheri

16 Apr 2020

Scientists and environmentalists, as well as indigenous communities know that Dingoes are Australia's prime apex predator and must be protected. Rather than eradicating them we should be exploring ways to coexist - protect the dingoes alongside the need to protect sheep and cows. There are many non-lethal alternatives to protect livestock.

1080 baits are toxic to all living things and to our Australian environment. They don't just cause excruciating deaths for dingoes. They also kill other native species. Many other native species suffer agonizing deaths from secondary feeding and taking baits, e.g. goannas, quolls, and marsupial rats and also some of our native birds. 1080 poison must be banned. It is already banned in many overseas countries.

Please ensure the dingo has a future. Australia's native animals deserve to be protected. This is the priority. Funds can be implemented to conserve/ reimburse stock losses. Non lethal means for protecting livestock must be implemented, for example maintain the fence, use guardian dogs. Pastoralists and Native species can co exist. Save the Dingo. Ban 1080 nationwide. It has no place in a civilized society.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Chris Scheri

17 Apr 2020

Hi Chris

Thank you for your comments on the 1080 baiting component of the proposed changes to the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Research on the Pest Smart website https://www.pestsmart.org.au/1080-poison-baiting-facts/ is as follows:
•There is no threat from 1080 baiting, used to control wild dogs, foxes and feral cats, to all of the populations of native animals that have been studied, including 29 species of native birds, 7 species of native reptiles and amphibians and 44 species of native mammals (including carnivorous marsupials such as the Spotted Tail Quoll).
•Many Australian native animals are tolerant to 1080 because over 30 Australian native plants naturally produce sodium fluoroacetate which is found in 1080 baits and the synthetically manufactured 1080 is identical to, and retains all the properties of, the natural sodium fluoroacetate poison found in these Australian native plants.
•1080 is highly soluble and biodegradable. This means it breaks down in water, soil and in carcasses over time (in hot, humid weather, it only takes a few days) and has limited impact on the environment.

.Your feedback will be collated and combined with others to contribute to the overall review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Greg Treloar

15 Apr 2020

As landholders along the SA Dog fence, and having suffered major stock losses to wild dogs, we fully endorse a policy that looks at wild dog control on a landscape wide basis. Compliance with and support of all forms of wild dog control, mentioned in the policy has a higher chance of delivering tangible results. These measures along with the SA dog fence rebuild project are positive steps for the SA pastoral sheep and wool producing zones, the mid north and therefore all of South Australia.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Greg Treloar

17 Apr 2020

Hi Greg

Thank you for providing your comments and on ground experience in the livestock industry with wild dog management. Your suggestions and comments will be considered during the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Simon Validzic

15 Apr 2020

(Note: I hope that people who do not live in Australia can comment. Please see final paragraph. I also sent this as an e-mail)

I oppose the changes that requires landholders to destroy "all wild dogs".

Dingoes should not be classified in the same category as domestic dogs and hybrids under the generic term "wild dogs". Although dingoes were brought to Australia by humans, they were brought by Aboriginal Australians about 3,500 years ago and they replaced former native carnivores such as the Tasmanian devil and thylacine on the mainland of Australia as the apex predator. Dingoes control populations of non-native, invasive animals, such as cats, foxes, wild pigs and rabbits. Dingoes also control populations of native animals such as kangaroos and emus. Domestic dogs and hybrid "wild dogs" can be larger than dingoes and may have a different and more harmful impact on native animal species, and may be more likely to attack humans.

In addition to their ecological role, dingoes have an intrinsic value and should be protected in their natural habitat.

Dingoes are important to Aboriginal Australians and they should decide how dingoes are managed.
Non-native dogs, cats, foxes, pigs and other non-native animals should be eradicated but poisoning is not an effective way to achieve that because it kills non-target species. Poisoning is also very expensive and inefficient since a lot of the baits simply go to waste.

Although it is difficult to distinguish dingoes from some domestic dogs and hybrids, attempts should be made to preserve dingoes in a state that is as pure as possible. In the absence of a better method, the "wild dogs" could be caught in a ‘humane’ trap and inspected visually. There are people who would be willing to perform such a task – from the Aboriginal Australian, zoological, native animal protection and/or animal rights communities.

Dingoes are adapted to living in the natural environment and are more of an attraction to tourists than are domestic dogs and hybrids.

There is no excuse to for governments to support the growth of the sheep industry or any other animal killing industry or to set aside large tracts of land for such industries because they are cruel, unsustainable and wasteful with regards to land area. If humans ate little or no meat, they would be healthier and that would require a lot less land for food production and free up land that could be returned to its native inhabitants. Planet Earth belongs to all species and not just to humans. Humans and human activities, especially animal farming, already take up over 50% of the land whereas millions of other species are left to share the remaining 50%, which is constantly being reduced as human activities take more and more land.

There is also no excuse for killing dingoes in order to protect non-native ‘pets’ and it is unacceptable than any ‘animal lover’ would support such a measure.

I lived in Victoria, Australia from 1970 to 1992. Since I did not wish to be part of a country in which the large-scale destruction of natural habitats, logging of forests and extermination of native animals continue to take place and which is the result of genocide against indigenous peoples, I returned to my country of origin and encourage others to do the same. Wolves are the Croatian ecological equivalent of dingoes and are a protected species. I am disappointed that many animal rights activists think that native, and even endangered, animal species are no more important than introduced, and even invasive, animal species such as domestic dogs and cats.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Simon Validzic

17 Apr 2020

Hi Simon

Thank you for your comments, we responded to your email 16/7/20

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Simon Validzic > Simon Validzic

17 Apr 2020

Dear Heather Miller,

thank you for your reply.

Best regards,

Simon Validzic

Ron Daniel

15 Apr 2020

I had been a Stock and Station Agent for over 30 years working in the pastoral areas of 4 states and the most common problem was Dingos or dingo cross dogs.
I part agree that poisoning can be a cruel death but is it any crueler than a sheep with its shoulder torn off and left to die or ist stomach dragging on the ground.
If a dingo only killed for food then in my opinion it might be tolerated to some extent but to go into a paddock and see 17 sheep dying from bights from a pack of dingos and could not find any evidence of any of the wounded sheep being eaten proves that they do not only kill for
food
I agree that Narkatt is a place for dingos provided that they are properly fenced in and the renewal of the old dog fence is a must and the culling of dingos and crosses is a must for our grazing industry to survive

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Ron Daniel

17 Apr 2020

Hi Ron

Thank you for sharing your experience as a Stock and Station agent in pastoral districts. Your suggestions and comments will be considered during the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Lucy Read

15 Apr 2020

As an owner of multiple sheep stations throughout the NW pastoral and being involved in the NE Pastoral districts I welcome the new alterations to the wild dog management practices.
Too often I’ve seen wounded sheep laying on their sides dying a slow death due to dog attacks. Just like any pest it needs to be controlled, just like any weed in a garden it needs to be managed before taking over the whole yard.
It’s simple, if there’s a problem, it needs to be dealt with and there needs to be proactive work to avoid future problems.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Lucy Read

17 Apr 2020

Hi Lucy

Thank you for providing your on ground experience in the livestock industry with wild dog management. Your suggestions and comments will be considered during the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Kaye Fels

15 Apr 2020

As pastoralists in the northern Flinders area of SA we fully support the revised Declared Animal Policy (Wild dogs & dingoes) Having lived and worked in this area for more than 60 years we have never seen the amount of depredation or numbers of wild dogs as there has been in the past decade or so. Many pastoralists have to run cattle instead of sheep due to stock losses, although dingoes have a very detrimental effect on the cattle industry too, affecting calving rates in particular. Dingoes and wild dog crosses are wanton killers. These animals do not just kill for food. Most of their prey are mauled and killed but not eaten. Nothing is more distressing to people in animal husbandry than to see animals suffering, mauled and left to die in anguish.
Because more pastoralists have moved into the cattle industry there is a much narrower buffer zone leaving the control of these animals to very few and causing paramount emotional, social and financial stresses to persons trying to survive in this zone. The dingo/dog problem is therefore moving into the mixed farming and agricultural areas of the state and unless the changes are implemented strongly and quickly to create a coordinated effort, the problem will affect all livestock producers. This means that all stakeholders in the lands in South Australia eg. National Parks, Conservation leases, indigenous lands etc must comply with all methods of control including trapping. Baiting alone does not solve the problem that we have at present.
There is also the added problem of increased cross breeding with other dog species in more populated areas.
I thank the government for bringing changes to the animal policy and for supporting the cost of renewal of the Dingo Fence giving producers hope for the future and help to alleviate this very real threat to our livestock industry in South Australia.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Coordination Team > Kaye Fels

17 Apr 2020

Hi Kaye

Thank you for providing your on ground experience in the livestock industry with wild dog management. Your suggestions and comments will be considered during the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Nikki Nutt

14 Apr 2020

As someone who has grown up on a sheep and cattle station, as well as spent years working on one, wild dog management is something that I believe strongly in and have taken part in. The livestock industry is a crucial part of the Australian economy, and deserves to be looked after. Wild dog predation on livestock is just one of the many challenges facing the industry at the moment, but one that people on the ground have a chance at making an impact on. We might not be able to make it rain, but we might be able to reduce the risk of wild dog attacks. However, this is only something that can be achieved through a coordinated effort. This needs to be something that all landowners participate in, which is why the revised policy needs to stay in effect.

Government Agency

PIRSA Wild Dog Coordination Team > Nikki Nutt

14 Apr 2020

Hi Nikki

Thank you for providing your on ground experience in the livestock industry with wild dog management. Your suggestions and comments will be considered during the review of the SA Wild Dog Policy.

Regards
Heather Miller
State Wild Dog Coordinator

Kylie Cairns

14 Apr 2020

I am a scientist who studies dingoes across Australia using genetics. I am concerned about the proposed changes to the Dingo/Wild Dog policy for several reasons.

First it uses the terminology "wild dog" which misleadingly implies that the animals targeted by these changes aren't dingoes. DNA testing effectively demonstrates that in SA a majority of the animals are dingoes. Feral domestic dogs are very rare, making up less than 1% of the population. Some of the dingo populations in southern SA, ie at Ngarkat, are genetically distinctive and have high conservation value. These populations should be protected, not eradicated.

Second, the ultimate aim of the program appears to be to 'virtually eradicate' dingoes south of the fence. It is not appropriate to eradicate a native species, particularly in conservation areas. Dingoes play a fundamentally important ecological role as terrestrial apex predator. Eradication will have serious ecological consequences for the biodiversity and environmental productivity of the landscape. This proposal ignores the cultural importance of dingoes to First Nations people by allowing dingoes to be targeted for eradication across the southern region of the state.

Third, the proposed changes are not evidence based. There is not adequate justification or evidence that warrants increasing lethal control. PIRSA should release stock loss data for all management zones, this is an importance step in public transparency and demonstrates that PIRSA is basing their management on evidence/data. What is the density of dingoes south of the dingo fence, and how does it differ between management zones? Currently, how many dingoes are being trapped south vs north of the dingo fence? Dingoes only pose a marginal risk to cattle and baiting has been observed to increase calf losses (Allen & Gonzalez 1998). The net productivity and ecosystem benefits of dingoes substantially outweigh the limited risk that dingoes pose to livestock, particularly if stock loss due to predation is relatively low. What are the leading causes of stock mortality in SA?

Government Agency

Wild Dog Planning Officer > Kylie Cairns

14 Apr 2020

Hi Kylie

Thank you for your comments and perspective on the Wild Dog Policy. They will be considered during the review.

Regards
Heather Miller

Kylie Cairns > Kylie Cairns

14 Apr 2020

Thank you Heather, I appreciate the effort that PIRSA has made to public consultation.

Geoffrey Fels

14 Apr 2020

Just at present we are finding up to five sheep a night that are being torn to pieces and killed by wild dogs or dingoes - a very distressing sight.
We are in favour of the proposed changes to the Wild Dog Management Policy.
Geoff Fels
Fels Grazing, Hawker. S.A.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Planning Officer > Geoffrey Fels

14 Apr 2020

Good morning Geoffrey

Thank you for your comments, on ground experience and perspective on the Wild Dog Policy. They will be considered during the review.

Regards
Heather Miller

Bea Heard

13 Apr 2020

1 - Please provide links to all data research sets you are basing this proposal on.
2 - The only links or data provided here or that are accessible come from research via "vested interests" eg: manufacturers or sellers of the Schedule 7 poison.
3 - As the responses provided within this forum indicate, the Wild Dog Management team have a bias to enforced poisoning by a Schedule 7 drug. What areas of redress do the general public have to request a review of the enforcement of this revised policy in relation to:
a - 1080 or PAPP poisoning of a "target species"
4 - Your FAQ provides a figure of 10 000 sheep dying via wild dogs in 2018, please advise the data for the number of sheep that died from exposure in the same year. (if you are unable to provide these stats, please provide links to the data you are using in your analogies for this or any years you have = https://legacy.yoursay.sa.gov.au/decisions/yoursay-engagements-feedback-on-the-revised-wild-dog-management-policy/frequently-asked-questions)
5 - Have you looked to, or collaborated with other States in relation to baiting?
6 - Responses here from Planning Officers acknowledge the science and research results across a range are at best 50/50. Given the 50% in favour have tie backs or links to the very industries that profit eg: makers of the proposed mandatory poisoning - how would the general public be able to have any confidence in the process or indeed the food safety of product coming from SA?
7 - Noting in science or indeed anything to do with "human consumption and health" the standard practise is to err on the side of caution, how then can the Department justify the proposal of mandatory poisoning, if it is not purely for monetary gain?
8 - In relation to the disputed claims of the ability to target species with the Schedule 7 poisons. Is your Department willing to give a guarantee that no other species will be harmed?
9 - In relation to the disputed claims re the ability to "target species" with the Schedule 7 poisons, is the Department will to undertake a filmed trial?
a - Department choice of a group of non target animals, including those the Department deem to be "immune" - given the ability to consume said targeted Schedule 7 poison and the filming of outcomes for the group of non-targeted species?
10 - In relation to Public perception and value in Australian Food Security, is the Department aware of a proposal to label all food products that have been sourced within 35 Ks of any Schedule 7 poison area?
Such labeling would ensure any person concerned with Schedule 7 poisoning being used around food and water sources would indeed no longer have any confidence in any SA produce.

Government Agency

Wild Dog Planning Officer > Bea Heard

14 Apr 2020

Hi Bea

Thank you for your comments and perspective on the Wild Dog Policy. They will be considered during the review.

Regards
Heather Miller