Tuesday, 28 November 2023

Wild dog control

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:38): (630) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Environment and concerns the review announced into current dingo management and conservation approaches in light of new scientific research regarding the status of what were previously understood to be wild dogs or dingo–dog hybrids. The action I seek from the minister is to ensure the review is extended to a period which allows proper population monitoring and that it harness the in-house expertise of the Arthur Rylah Institute instead of relying on interest groups on either of the sides of this unfortunately politicised argument.

The review is repeatedly justified as resulting from this emerging research and apparently accepts the disputed findings by referencing the previously understood position. It refers to the significant change in the knowledge that underpins current policy for managing wild dogs and dingoes in Victoria. Given the research referenced is contentious, relies on a small sample size study and is conducted by an academic who advises the Australian Dingo Foundation lobby group no less, I am sure the minister will agree it deserves further scrutiny. In fact any review accepting these conclusions as fact would be immediately suspect – little more than a fig leaf to justify preconceived conclusions.

My second concern, about the language used and the details revealed, is this. The announcement says:

The review will be finalised within 12 months –

and will –

… include a comprehensive assessment of the dingo conservation status, including an assessment of dingo population and distribution …

The new dingo unprotection order expires in only 12 months to coincide with the conclusion of the review, and I find it difficult to believe that a thorough population survey, conclusion and policy review and relevant legislation can be produced by this time. The population study alone must surely take longer than this to be ecologically reliable. A cynic might suggest the only review which can be undertaken this quickly is one with a predetermined outcome. I sincerely hope this is not true of course, because it really matters.

Last year wild dogs or dingoes maimed or killed more than 1200 livestock, and the financial and psychological impact on farmers is real. Recent years have shown a reasonable compromise, where attacks on stock have been reduced, but observed dingo and wild dog numbers have remained relatively stable. It would be a huge disservice to science, not to mention a horrible betrayal of dedicated livestock farmers, to abandon this evidence-based compromise in the face of absolutist, ideological, politically motivated scientific activism.