Managing the Impact of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs

Abstract

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs is the first book to provide a comprehensive review of the history and biology of wild dogs in Australia, the damage they cause, and community attitudes to their management. Australia's wild dogs include dingoes, introduced around 4000 years ago, feral domestic dogs and hybrids between the two. They are widely distributed throughout Australia. Predation and harassment of stock by wild dogs causes millions of dollars worth of losses to Australian sheep, cattle and goat producers each year. There are also opportunity costs in areas where sheep are not grazed because of the high risk of wild dog predation. For this reason, wild dog control is a significant expense for many pastoralists and government agencies. Yet conservation of pure dingoes is also important and is threatened by their hybridisation with feral domestic dogs on the mainland. Key strategies for successful wild dog management are recommended by the authors, who are scientific experts on wild dog management. The strategies are illustrated by case studies. Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs is an essential guide for policy makers, pastoralists, conservation reserve managers and all those interested in wild dog management.

Full text

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild
Dogs
is the first book to provide a comprehensive
review of the history and biology of wild dogs
in Australia, the damage they cause, and
community attitudes to their management.
Australia's wild dogs include dingoes, introduced
around 4000 years ago, feral domestic dogs and
hybrids between the two. They are widely
distributed throughout Australia. Predation and
harassment of stock by wild dogs causes millions
of dollars worth of losses to Australian sheep,
cattle and goat producers each year. There are
also opportunity costs in areas where sheep are
not grazed because of the high risk of wild dog
predation. For this reason, wild dog control is a
significant expense for many pastoralists and
government agencies. Yet conservation of pure
dingoes is also important and is threatened by
their hybridisation with feral domestic dogs on the
mainland.
Key strategies for successful wild dog management
are recommended by the authors, who are scientific
experts on wild dog management. The strategies
are illustrated by case studies.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild
Dogs
is an essential guide for policy makers,
pastoralists, conservation reserve managers and
all those interested in wild dog management.
Managing the Impacts of
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY - AUSTRALIA
Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes
and Other Wild Dogs
Peter Fleming, Laurie Corbett,
Robert Harden and Peter Thomson
Scientific editing by Mary Bomford
Published by
Bureau of Rural Sciences

© Commonwealth of Australia 2001
ISBN 0 644 29240 7 (set)
ISBN 0 642 70494 5 (this publication)
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be
reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Bureau of Rural Sciences. Requests
and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Executive Director, Bureau of
Rural Sciences, PO Box E11, Kingston ACT 2604.
The Bureau of Rural Sciences is a professionally independent scientific bureau within the Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry — Australia. Its mission is to provide first-class scientific research and
advice to enable the department to achieve its vision — rising national prosperity and quality of life through
competitive and sustainable agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries.
The Commonwealth and all persons acting for the Commonwealth in preparing the booklet disclaim all
responsibility and liability to any person arising or indirectly from any person taking or not taking action
based upon the information in this booklet.
Credits for cover photographs: Main: Laurie Corbett. Inset: NSW Agriculture.
Affiliations:
Authors: Peter Fleming, NSW Agriculture – Vertebrate Pest Research Unit
Laurie Corbett, EWL Sciences Pty Ltd
Robert Harden, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service – Biodiversity Research Group
Peter Thomson, Agriculture Western Australia – Vertebrate Pest Research Section
Editor: Mary Bomford, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Typeset by Lisa Curtin
Printed by Pirie Printers Pty Limited
Preferred way to cite this publication:
Fleming, P., Corbett, L., Harden, R. and Thomson, P. (2001) Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other
Wild Dogs. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
PO Box E11
Kingston ACT 2604
Ph: 02 6272 4282
Fax: 02 6272 4747
Internet: http://www.affa.gov.au/outputs/ruralscience.html
AFFA Shopfront
GPO Box 858
Canberra ACT 2601
Ph: 02 6272 5550
Fax: 02 6272 5771
Email: shopfront@affa.gov.au
Copies available from:Published by:

Wild dogs, which include feral domestic
dogs, dingoes and their hybrids, are a prob-
lem in Australia because their predation and
harassment of stock causes millions of dol-
lars worth of losses to sheep, cattle and goat
producers each year. There are also opportu-
nity costs in areas where sheep are not
grazed because of the high risk of wild dog
predation. Yet dingoes are also valued as a
native species and their conservation is
important to many people. The survival of
pure dingoes on mainland Australia is threat-
ened by hybridisation with feral domestic
dogs.
There is little reliable information about the
cost of wild dog predation or the benefits of
wild dog control. The relationship between
dog abundance and livestock predation is
often complex and variable and sometimes
stock losses can be high even when wild dog
numbers are low. Although spending on
pest control should be justified in terms of
economic returns on such investments, this
is clearly difficult when changes to livestock
productivity in response to dog control are
often poorly quantified. This can be further
complicated where pastoral properties abut
government lands where dingo conservation
is a management objective and dogs move
between these areas.
This book is one in a series produced by the
Bureau of Rural Sciences as part of the
National Feral Animal Control Program — a
Natural Heritage Trust initiative. Others in the
series include guidelines for managing feral
horses, rabbits, foxes, feral goats, feral pigs,
rodents and carp. The principles underlying
the strategic management of vertebrate pests
have been described in Managing Vertebrate
Pests: Principles and Strategies (Braysher
1993) and in Australia’s Pest Animals: New
Solutions to Old Problems (Olsen 1998). The
emphasis is on the management of pest dam-
age rather than on simply reducing pest den-
sity. The guidelines recommend that, wher-
ever practical, management should concen-
trate on achieving clearly defined economic
or conservation benefits.
To ensure the guidelines are accepted as a
basis for wild dog management, comment
has been sought from State, Territory and
Commonwealth Government agencies and
from land managers and community and
research organisations. The Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Resource
Management has endorsed the publication
of these guidelines.
These guidelines provide natural resource
users, managers, advisers and funding agen-
cies with ‘best practice’ national guidelines
for managing the economic and environ-
mental damage caused by wild dogs. They
will help land managers reduce harm to live-
stock caused by wild dogs and assist in the
conservation of pure dingoes through the
use of scientifically based management that
is humane, cost-effective and integrated with
ecologically sustainable land management.
Peter O’Brien
Executive Director
Bureau of Rural Sciences
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs iii
Foreword

dsgsdf

FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 5
1. NOMENCLATURE, HISTORY, DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE 11
Summary 11
1.1 Nomenclature 11
1.2 Origin, spread and distribution of dingoes throughout the world 12
1.3 Introduction, spread and distribution of dingoes and other wild dogs in Australia 13
2. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY 17
Summary 17
2.1 General description 17
2.2 Habitats 20
2.3 Diet and hunting strategies 20
2.4 Home range and movements 27
2.5 Social organisation and behaviour 29
2.6 Reproduction 32
2.7 Mortality and disease 33
2.8 Population dynamics and changes in abundance 35
2.9 Hybridisation 39
2.10 Co-occurence with other predators 41
3. ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND VALUES 43
Summary 43
3.1 Economic impact 43
3.2 Environmental impact 49
3.3 Resource and conservation value 50
3.4 Diseases and parasites 51
3.5 Interactions between wild dogs, marsupial carnivores and introduced predators 53
3.6 Predator–prey relationships 54
3.7 Interactions between humans and wild dogs 60
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs v
Contents

4. COMMUNITY ATTITUDES AFFECTING MANAGEMENT 63
Summary 63
4.1 Community perceptions and attitudes 63
4.2 Animal welfare issues 65
4.3 Public health issues 68
4.4 Conservation issues 69
5. PAST AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT 71
Summary 71
5.1 Past legal status and management 72
5.2 Current legal status 75
5.3 Current management strategies 77
6. TECHNIQUES TO MEASURE AND MANAGE IMPACT AND ABUNDANCE 83
Summary 83
6.1 Introduction 83
6.2 Estimating abundance 84
6.3 Estimating agricultural and environmental impacts 87
6.4 Control techniques 93
6.5 Costs of control 107
6.6 Environmental and non-target issues associated with 1080 baiting 109
7. STRATEGIC APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT 111
Summary 111
7.1 Strategic approach 112
7.2 Defining the problem 112
7.3 Developing a management plan 113
7.4 Economic frameworks 124
7.5 Implementation 129
7.6 Monitoring and evaluation 129
7.7 Case studies 130
8. DEFICIENCIES IN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE 135
Summary 135
8.1 Assess relationship between wild dog abundance and predation of cattle 135
8.2 Assess relative effectiveness and efficacy of baiting strategies 135
Bureau of Rural Sciences
vi

8.3 Assess effect of Rabbit Calicivirus Disease on dingo predation of livestock 136
8.4 Investigate feasibility of compensation schemes for wild dog predation 136
8.5 Train vertebrate pest control operators and managers 136
8.6 Improve public awareness of agricultural production, conservation and animal
welfare issues for wild dog control 136
8.7 Develop species-specific and more humane control techniques for wild dogs 137
8.8 Assess economic importance of hydatids in wild dogs 137
8.9 Assess the role of disease induced mortality in wild dogs 138
8.10 Assess the role of wild dogs if rabies were introduced 138
8.11 Assess risks to non-target species of 1080 poisoning 138
8.12 Assess the ecological effects of wild dog control on feral cat and fox populations 138
8.13 Assess the interactions of wild dogs and native carnivore populations 139
8.14 Assess effects of wild dog abundance on macropods 139
8.15 Assess the value of dingo conservation 139
8.16 Develop a method to identify genetically pure dingoes 140
8.17 Improve knowledge about genetics of wild dogs 140
8.18 Assess the ecological role of dingo hybrids 140
REFERENCES 141
APPENDIX A Parasites and pathogens recorded from wild dogs in Australia 157
APPENDIX B Getting the best out of extension 161
APPENDIX C Authors’ biographies 165
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 167
GLOSSARY 169
INDEX 175
FIGURES
Figure 1 Strategic approach to managing the impacts of wild dogs. 9
Figure 2 Distribution of wild dogs and livestock. 15
Figure 3 The pelts of wild dogs, showing variety of colours. 19
Figure 4 The breeding cycle of adult (more than one-year-old) and young
(less than one-year-old) female dingoes in central Australia. 33
Figure 5 Fluctuations in dingo density in the Fortescue River region 1976–84. 37
Figure 6 A conceptual model of the dynamics of a population of wild dogs
in an area exposed to annual baiting programs. 37
Figure 7 The process of hybridisation between dingoes and domestic dogs. 40
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs vii

Figure 8 Cattle numbers and rainfall in central Australia from 1874 to 1985. 55
Figure 9 A model of predation by wild dogs in a pristine coastal ecosystem
in tropical Australia. 56
Figure 10 Models of predation by wild dogs in disturbed ecosystems in
arid Australia. 59
Figure 11 Dingo predation on sheep. 91
Figure 12 A wire-netting wild dog-proof fence in north-eastern New South Wales. 94
Figure 13 New wire-netting fences. 94
Figure 14 A decision-making framework for devising a plan of management for
reducing predation of livestock by dingoes and other wild dogs in eastern
Australia. 122
Figure 15 Some hypothetical relationships between dog density and damage. 125
Figure 16 The relationship between density of wild dogs and the damage caused
by wild dogs to cattle enterprises in north-eastern New South Wales. 125
Figure 17 A marginal analysis of wild dog control. 126
Figure 18 An example of benefit–cost ratio analyses. 132
TABLES
Table 1 The occurrence of major food groups (% of samples) in the diet
of dingoes and other wild dogs in Australia. 21
Table 2 Sheep losses caused by dingoes over an 18-day period. 45
Table 3 Predation of livestock by wild dogs in north-eastern New South Wales. 46
Table 4 Australian legislation and policies for dingoes and other wild dogs. 81
Table 5 The effort expended for the control of wild dogs by landholders
in north-eastern New South Wales. 109
Table 6 A decision table of strategic and reactive control measures for
wild dogs in New South Wales. 117
Table 7 Hypothetical benefit–cost comparison of two wild dog control
strategies using two sets of sheep productivity data. 133
BOXES
Box 1 Recognising wild dog predation of sheep 89
Box 2 A decision-making framework for wild dog control 119
Box 3 Economic framework for wild dog management 124
Bureau of Rural Sciences
viii

Special thanks are due to the following people
who provided detailed comments which
enhanced the accuracy and usefulness of this
publication: David Adams, Lee Allen, Peter
Bird, John Burley, Peter Catling, Brian Coman,
Carole de Fraga, Chris Dickman, Glenn
Edwards, Penny Fisher, Hugh Gent, Clive
Marks, Clyde McGaw, Sean Moran, Alan
Newsome, Barry Oakman, Syd Shea and
Christopher Short. We also thank all the partici-
pants of the Wild Dog Management Workshop,
held in Canberra in December 1996, which
was the precursor of this publication.
Several individuals from the Bureau of Rural
Sciences deserve mention. Quentin Hart man-
aged the overall publication production pro-
cess and assisted with editing, design and
print management. Lisa Curtin incorporated
the numerous modifications to the final drafts,
assisted with copy editing, compiled the
index, typeset the document and had major
responsibility for final production. Dana
Bradford helped collate earlier drafts of the
manuscript. Kim Tatnell redrew the figures.
The draft manuscript was circulated to the
following organisations for comment:
• Animals Australia
• Australian Conservation Foundation
• Australian Veterinary Association
• Central Land Council
• Commonwealth Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
• CSIRO
• Land and Water Resources Research and
Development Corporation
• National Consultative Committee on
Animal Welfare
• National Farmers’ Federation
• Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation
• Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Resource Management
• Standing Committee on Conservation
• Vertebrate Pests Committee
We thank these groups and hope that this
document will facilitate their involvement in
more strategic management of wild dog
impacts.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs ix
Acknowledgments

Wild dogs are widely distributed throughout
Australia and are pests in agricultural areas,
particularly in areas dominated by sheep
enterprises. Predation of sheep and cattle
threatens the economic viability of some
properties and the costs of wild dog control
can be substantial. At the same time, in unoc-
cupied lands and areas of extensive cattle
grazing wild dogs are often tolerated and
dingoes are actively conserved in parts of
their range.
These guidelines are a comprehensive review
of the origins of dingoes and other wild dogs in
Australia, their biology and ecology, the dam-
age they cause, and past and current manage-
ment. The attitudes of various community
groups to wild dogs and the damage they
cause through predation of livestock, and to
the conservation of dingoes were sought dur-
ing the production of these guidelines. A strate-
gic approach to management is recommended
to reduce predation on livestock by wild dogs
and to allow conservation of dingoes. This
approach is illustrated by case studies.
Deficiencies in knowledge, management and
legislation are identified.
These guidelines have been prepared pri-
marily for State and Territory management
agencies as a basis on which to consult with
land managers and relevant interest groups
and to prepare state, regional and local
strategies for managing wild dogs and reduc-
ing the damage they cause to livestock
industries. Their purpose is to assist in devel-
oping the most cost-effective strategies to
reduce wild dog damage to production.
Ideally, such strategies are based on reliable
quantitative information about the damage
caused by dogs, the cost of control measures
and the effect that implementing control has
on reducing damage. In developing these
guidelines the authors have used all such
available information. In some instances,
however, where reliable information is not
yet available, land managers responsible for
wild dog management will still have to make
assumptions about impacts and the efficacy
and cost-effectiveness of control techniques.
Biology, ecology and taxonomy
The wild dog population comprises two sub-
species of canid, dingoes (recommended
nomenclature, Canis lupus dingo) and feral
dogs (recommended nomenclature, C. l.
familiaris) and hybrids of the two. Dingoes
were first introduced to Australia some 4000
years ago and domestic dogs have been pre-
sent since first European settlement in 1788.
Dingoes and other wild dogs are widely dis-
tributed throughout the country and are pre-
sent in most environments. However, din-
goes and other wild dogs have been
removed from much of the agricultural zone
over the past 200 years and hybridisation
between the subspecies over that time has
resulted in a lesser proportion of pure din-
goes, especially in south-eastern Australia.
The average adult dingo in Australia weighs
16 kilograms and, although feral dogs and
hybrids may weigh up to 60 kilograms, most
are less than 20 kilograms. Pure dingoes are
distinct from similar-looking domestic dogs
and hybrids because they breed once a year
and have some different skull characteristics.
The present distribution of dingoes and
other wild dogs covers most of the mainland,
except for the sheep and cereal growing
areas of south-eastern Australia. Wild dogs
live in small groups or packs in territories
where the home ranges of individuals vary
between 10 and 300 square kilometres.
Packs are usually stable but under certain
conditions some wild dogs, usually young
males, disperse.
Although wild dogs eat a diverse range of
foods, from insects to buffalo (Bubalus
bubalis), they focus on medium and large
vertebrates. Hunting group size and hunting
strategies differ according to prey type to
maximise hunting success. Larger groups of
wild dogs are more successful when hunting
large kangaroos (Macropus spp.) and cattle
and solitary animals are more successful
when hunting rabbits and small macropods.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 1
Summary

Female dingoes become sexually mature by
two years and have only one oestrus period
each year, although some do not breed in
droughts. Female feral dogs of a similar size
to dingoes have the potential to have two lit-
ters each year but this is rarely achieved
because of the high nutritional demands of
raising young. Litters average five pups and
are usually whelped during winter.
Agricultural impacts
Wild dogs prey on livestock and predation
on sheep and cattle can threaten the eco-
nomic viability of properties in some areas.
Sheep are the most commonly attacked live-
stock, followed by cattle and goats.
Some individual wild dogs cause far more
damage than others, although many individ-
uals will attack or harass sheep, sometimes
maiming without killing. Wild dogs some-
times chase sheep without attacking them.
Even when wild dogs kill sheep, they often
leave carcasses uneaten. Wild dogs that fre-
quently kill or maim sheep often eat other
prey, indicating that predation of livestock
may be independent of the abundance of
other prey. Surplus killing, where more
sheep are killed than are needed for food,
means that stock losses can be high even
when wild dogs are at low densities.
Wild dogs are implicated in the spread of
hydatids, a risk to human health and the cause
of losses of production associated with hydati-
dosis (causal agent Echinococcus granulosus)
in cattle and sheep. They also provide a reser-
voir for heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) infec-
tion and dog diseases such as parvovirus
(causal agent Parvovirus). Wild dogs pose the
greatest potential risk of maintaining and
spreading dog rabies (Rhabdoviridae) if it
were to be introduced to Australia.
Conservation of dingoes
The dingo is usually considered a native
Australian mammal. Dingoes are an intrinsic
part of natural ecosystems and they also
have aesthetic value. There is some public
expectation that dingoes should be con-
served and dingoes are legally protected in
some States and Territories. In Australian
wildlife communities, wild dogs are top
order predators, and as such probably have a
major influence on the abundance of the
species they compete with or prey on. The
interactions between wild dogs and foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) are not well understood. It is
unknown whether the presence wild dogs
reduces fox abundance and hence whether
wild dogs reduce the impact of foxes on
native animal prey.
The greatest threat to the survival of dingoes
as a protected sub-species is hybridisation
with other dogs. In the more settled coastal
areas of Australia and increasingly in out-
back Australia, the barriers to mating
between domestic dogs (feral and owned)
and dingoes are rapidly being removed.
Hence hybridisation is becoming more com-
mon and the pure dingo gene pool is being
swamped. In south-eastern Australia, more
than half the wild dogs are hybrids. Changes
to policies on wild dog management and
people’s attitudes would be needed to pre-
vent the extinction of pure dingoes on the
mainland. The main hope for conservation is
to educate people about the plight of din-
goes and to manage pure dingoes on large
islands such as Fraser Island and Melville
Island.
Community attitudes affecting
management
Opinions vary as to the pest status of din-
goes and other wild dogs. People in the agri-
cultural sector often view wild dogs as a pest
to be removed from the environment. In
contrast, Aboriginal peoples, urban people
and conservationists often view dingoes as
native wildlife that should be conserved.
Public opinion influences not only the type
of management strategies that are developed
but also the type of control methods that are
used. Wider public attitudes rightly demand
that the techniques used for wild dog control
be as humane as possible and minimise risks
to non-target animals and other environmen-
tal values. Management strategies that do not
address or acknowledge broad community
attitudes are susceptible to disruption or
interference.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
2

Past and current management
In the past, legislation for the management
of wild dogs has included punitive Acts and
Acts dealing with the conservation of
wildlife. Management of wild dogs relied
heavily on labour-intensive techniques, such
as trapping, shooting, and ground baiting,
with bounty payments being offered as an
incentive to kill dogs. Much of the control
work was reactive, dealing with problems as
they arose. Nevertheless, some strategic, pre-
ventative control was carried out including
the construction of district-wide exclusion
fences.
The dingo is extinct in much of the sheep
and cereal production zones of eastern and
southern Australia because of habitat modifi-
cation and the success of early poisoning
campaigns. The areas that are largely with-
out wild dogs are separated from areas
where they are still present by dog-proof
fences that were erected around the turn of
the century and are still maintained.
In most States and Territories, there is a legal
requirement to destroy wild dogs in sheep
and cattle grazing zones. Poisoning pro-
grams form the basis of lethal control efforts
although trapping and shooting are also
important.
Current management strategies focus on the
objective of minimising the impact of wild
dog predation on livestock, not just on
killing wild dogs. Aerial baiting with 1080
(sodium fluoroacetate) baits forms a major
part of most management programs and is
primarily targeted at limited zones adjacent
to livestock grazing areas. Large coordinated
campaigns have generally been adopted,
being more efficient and effective than small
localised efforts. Bounty payments have not
been successful in reducing predation by
wild dogs and are subject to abuse.
Policy and legislation to encourage the con-
servation of pure dingoes is required in
some States and Territories and a concerted
nation-wide effort is needed to ensure that
dingo conservation is not thwarted by con-
flicting legislation. Simultaneously, the con-
trol of wild dogs, including dingoes, must be
permitted where predation of livestock
occurs.
Techniques to measure and manage
impact and abundance
To formulate wild dog management plans, it
is necessary to measure the level of preda-
tion inflicted by wild dogs and to measure
changes in wild dog abundance. These two
measures enable an assessment of when
wild dog control is required and how effec-
tive it is.
The principal techniques to control wild
dogs are exclusion fencing, shooting, trap-
ping and poisoning. Poisoning using 1080 is
the most cost-effective means of reducing
populations of wild dogs over large areas of
remote or inaccessible country. Various bait
types are used and methods of placement
range from burying individual baits to drop-
ping baits from aircraft. Trapping is still used
for wild dog control and will probably
always be needed to target particular dogs
that cannot be removed by other means.
New techniques such as the use of livestock-
guarding dogs, poison ejecting devices and
toxic collars have been suggested as alterna-
tives to current methods.
Strategic approach to management
The strategic approach to wild dog manage-
ment allows improvements at both the local
and regional scale. The strategic approach
has four components: defining the problem;
developing a management plan; implement-
ing the plan; and monitoring and evaluating
progress and outcomes.
Defining the problem involves the identifica-
tion of who has a wild dog problem, what
harm the dogs cause, where, when and why
damage occurs and how much it costs.
The development of a management plan
requires setting management objectives that
should include interim and long-term goals,
a time frame for achieving them and indica-
tors for measuring performance. Options for
wild dog control include local eradication,
strategic management, reactive management
or no dog control.
Economic frameworks are needed for assess-
ing the value of alternative strategies to man-
age wild dogs. In some situations, manage-
ment plans that include conservation strategies
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 3

for dingoes are required so that potentially
conflicting goals can be encompassed.
Consultation between stakeholders and clear
identification of the goals is critical for avoiding
potential conflicts between stakeholder groups
with different legal obligations and objectives.
Wild dogs have large home ranges and often
traverse boundaries between lands managed
by different stakeholders. Action by groups,
including government agencies, is therefore
an essential element of planning and imple-
mentation. By pooling resources, wild dog
control groups and boards have been better
able to manage wild dog problems.
Management programs must be flexible
enough to account for the different objec-
tives of stakeholders.
Monitoring and evaluation occur at different
levels throughout the implementation and
on completion of actions. Operational moni-
toring records and reviews the costs of
actions during the program and ensures that
the management plan is executed in the
most cost-effective manner. Performance
monitoring assesses the effectiveness of the
management plan in meeting the agricultural
production or conservation objectives that
were established initially. Evaluation of data
from both forms of monitoring enables the
continuing refinement of the management
plan. Strategic management of wild dogs is
based on the concept of adaptive manage-
ment, in which the management plan is flex-
ible, responding to measured changes in
economic, environmental and pest circum-
stances. By adopting the strategic approach,
predation by wild dogs should be minimised
while the conservation of the dingo propor-
tion of the wild dog population will be
enhanced. Under such an approach, limited
resources will be better allocated and the
scale of management will be more appropri-
ate for wild dog problems.
Deficiencies in knowledge and
practice
Although there is much knowledge about
the ecology, behaviour and effects of preda-
tion by dingoes and other wild dogs, some
topics require further research to enable best
practice management to be implemented.
These include better definition of the agricul-
tural impacts of wild dogs and control pro-
grams for different enterprises in different
regions, study of the interactions between
the control of rabbits and wild dog predation
of livestock and the effects of wild dog con-
trol on the abundance of kangaroos and wal-
labies (Macropus spp.), and the effects of
this on agriculture and forestry. There are
also knowledge deficits relating to the con-
servation of dingoes, the effects of wild dog
control programs on persistence of pure din-
goes, the interactions between predation by
wild dogs and the conservation status of
non-target animals, and the interactions of
wild dogs with feral cats, foxes and native
carnivores.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
4

These guidelines for managing the impacts
of dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) and other
wild dogs (C.l. familiaris) are the eighth in
the Managing Vertebrate Pests series being
published by the Bureau of Rural Sciences
(BRS) in cooperation with the Vertebrate
Pests Committee of the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Resource Management
(SCARM). These guidelines were funded
under the agricultural component of the
National Feral Animal Control Program
(NFACP) of the Natural Heritage Trust
(NHT). A fundamental difference between
these guidelines and the preceding publica-
tions exists because dingoes hold a legal
position unique amongst Australian mam-
mals. Unlike most of the other species
addressed by the series, dingoes are simulta-
neously a protected native species and
declared vermin. The dingo and some native
birds and rodents are both protected and
declared according to their occurrence and
situation.
Other guidelines in the series include those
for managing feral horses (Dobbie et al.
1993), rabbits (Williams et al. 1995), foxes
(Saunders et al. 1995), feral goats (Parkes et
al. 1996), feral pigs (Choquenot et al. 1996),
rodents (Caughley et al. 1998) and carp
(Koehn et al. 2000). A companion volume,
Managing Vertebrate Pests: Principles and
Strategies (Braysher 1993), which explains
the principles on which best practice pest
management is based, can be read in con-
junction with all of these guidelines. There is
also an overarching publication (Olsen
1998), designed for general reading, which
reviews past management of pest animals in
Australia and promotes a more strategic
approach for future management. The bene-
fits of focusing on the damage caused by a
pest and not the pest itself are explained.
Olsen (1998) also explains the need to take
into account the links between different feral
animal species and other aspects of land
management, consistent with the holistic
approach advocated under the Ecologically
Sustainable Development (ESD) Strategy and
Landcare.
A single publication considering the main
vertebrate pests would be desirable and con-
sistent with the holistic approach to land
management advocated under the ESD
Strategy and Landcare objectives. Such a
publication would take into account links
between pests and links between pests and
other aspects of land management.
However, the complexities posed by such an
approach and current limited knowledge of
interspecific interactions has made this
impractical. All the guidelines, including
these, consider interactions between species
and the relationships with other aspects of
land management.
These guidelines are principally for State and
Territory land management agencies, to
assist them to better coordinate, plan and
implement regional and local programs that
can more effectively manage adverse
impacts of wild dogs. The Commonwealth
Government has an interest in improving
strategies, techniques and approaches to
manage the damage caused by wild dogs,
both through its responsibilities as a manag-
er of Commonwealth lands and resources,
and through programs such as NFACP and
the National Landcare Program (NLP) of the
NHT, and the National Strategy for the
Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity
(Commonwealth of Australia 1992).
Vertebrate pests in Australia: species
or situations?
The definition of pest status can be con-
tentious. Some species are regarded as pests
all the time in all situations because of their
current detrimental impacts or their potential
adverse impacts, given their biology,
behaviour and historical performance as
pests in similar or other habitats. Other ani-
mals are generally regarded as having either
beneficial or neutral net impact in most situa-
tions. Some species, such as the dingo and
the feral goat, may be both a significant pest
and a significant conservation or economic
resource. Perhaps the most useful criterion
for evaluating the status of an animal is to
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 5
Introduction

evaluate it in terms of its value in a particular
situation. For example, cats are valued highly
as pets by many people and some pedigree
cats have a high market price. Conversely,
predation by feral cats is regarded as a pro-
cess threatening some endangered native
vertebrates with extinction (Dickman 1996).
The National Feral Animal Control
Program
NFACP is working with State, Territory, and
local governments to reduce damage by pest
animals to agriculture and the environment.
The agricultural component of NFACP is
administered by BRS; the environmental
component by Environment Australia.
Under its component of NFACP, BRS is pro-
ducing these national management guide-
lines for the main pest species of agricultural
production and supporting projects to
address the information, management and
extension deficiencies they identify and to
demonstrate the strategic management
approaches they advocate.
Applying a strategic approach to the man-
agement of the impacts of wild dogs involves
the establishment of four essential compo-
nents (Figure 1) This approach has been
adopted in the development of each set of
national guidelines.
The strategic management approach
Problem definition and planning of
management strategies
There are two problems requiring manage-
ment. The first problem is predation of live-
stock by dingoes and other wild dogs.
Although there are no estimates of the
Australia-wide losses to livestock production
caused by wild dogs (including dingoes), the
estimated annual expenditure on control
activities of $7 million is second only to that
for rabbits. The historical threat of predation
by wild dogs has largely determined the distri-
bution of sheep and cattle in Australia. A barri-
er fence stretching from the Great Australian
Bight through South Australia and
Queensland and ending in north-eastern New
South Wales has been built and maintained by
government agents and graziers to exclude
wild dogs from sheep grazing lands.
Secondly, the dingo has been in Australia
long enough to be regarded as part of the
native fauna. The existing dynamics of
Australia’s fauna have evolved with the
dingo and the conservation of dingoes within
non-agricultural environments is a legitimate
aim. Since European settlement, the increas-
ing presence in the population of genes from
feral and domestic dogs has reduced the
dingo population’s integrity. If this trend
continues it is predicted that the increasing
occurrence of domestic dog genes in wild
populations will effectively lead to the
extinction on the mainland of the dingo as a
subspecies by 2100 (Corbett 1995a).
Strategies to conserve pure dingoes can con-
flict with strategies to control wild dogs to
reduce their impacts on livestock enterpris-
es. Developing approaches to satisfactorily
address both problems requires clarification
of issues and knowledge of the biology and
status of dingoes and other wild dogs. Thus,
Chapter 1 discusses the taxonomy of dingoes
and other wild dogs, and details their origins,
distribution and abundance, and Chapter 2
reviews their biology and ecology. In
Chapter 3, the impacts of wild dogs on
human activity and environments are dis-
cussed. Public attitudes can strongly influ-
ence the perceived nature of dingoes and
other wild dogs as a resource or as a prob-
lem, and these issues are addressed in
Chapter 4. The legal status of dingoes and
other wild dogs, and past and current man-
agement practices, are reviewed in Chapter
5.
The objective of the national guidelines is to
stimulate a widespread change in approach
to the management of dingoes and other
wild dogs from ad hoc measures to a strate-
gic management approach based on cooper-
ative action and the most recent knowledge.
An integrated approach on a regional or total
catchment scale is advocated because the
problems associated with dingoes and wild
dogs usually extend past the boundaries of
individual land holdings.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
6

The primary aim of a land manager is to
meet their desired conservation and/or agri-
cultural production goals using practical and
cost-effective means. This must be done as
humanely as possible and without degrading
other natural resources on which the long-
term sustainability of agriculture and biodi-
versity depend. There is great variability
within and between the environments in
which wild dogs occur and this influences
management activities. The factors that affect
the desired outcomes include fluctuating
commodity prices, legal constraints, climatic
variability including drought, interactions of
wild dogs with prey, grazing pressure, live-
stock genetics, conservation objectives, ani-
mal welfare considerations and social fac-
tors.
Legislative constraints and the extensive
nature of wild dog predation problems have
resulted in a strategic approach being manifest
in many areas. These guidelines will have
achieved their purpose if the advocated strate-
gic approach is widely accepted and imple-
mented. Strategic management requires the
measurement of the impacts and abundance
of wild dogs, and this can be achieved in a
number of ways which are detailed in Chapter
6. Many people and agencies, including gov-
ernments and community groups, jointly own
wild dog problems and need to work coopera-
tively to find strategic solutions (Chapter 4 and
Chapter 7). In some cases, inadequacies in
available knowledge may prevent identifica-
tion of the best strategy. A flexible approach,
where the implementation of management
actions are continually monitored and evaluat-
ed and modified if necessary (‘learning by
doing’ or ‘adaptive management’) is often the
best approach. Strategic approaches to the
management of dingoes and other wild dogs
are described in Chapter 7.
Implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of strategic programs
A group approach to the implementation of
management programs reflecting coopera-
tion between individuals and agencies at the
local and regional level is encouraged
throughout the guidelines and Chapter 7
outlines features to aid the implementation
of management plans. A group approach
involves all affected landholders and others
with a significant interest in the management
and conservation issues associated with din-
goes and other wild dogs from early plan-
ning stages through to implementation,
monitoring and evaluation.
At a national level, such an approach
requires that the various roles and responsi-
bilities of government agencies, individuals
and interest groups are taken into account
and integrated. State and Territory govern-
ments provide the legislative and regulatory
infrastructure, and conservation and pest
control agencies administer the appropriate
Acts and regulations. Responsibility for local
management of wild dogs rests with the
owners and occupiers or administrators of
land. The active participation of the
Vertebrate Pests Committee (VPC) and all
associated government agencies in develop-
ing these guidelines is thus important in
obtaining their acceptance and support for
implementation by both agricultural and
conservation interests.
For a strategic management program to be
successful, it must be continually monitored
and evaluated so that modifications and
improvements can be incorporated. Such
monitoring, evaluation and re-evaluation is
an ongoing process and techniques for
assessing impacts and monitoring manage-
ment practices and programs are detailed in
Chapter 6.
Strategic management at the local
and regional level
The management of wild dogs is a complex
issue because the pest status and conservation
status of the species must be balanced. This
document presents the best practices for the
management of dingoes and other wild dogs.
Management must attempt to reduce the
adverse impacts of wild dogs while maintain-
ing viable populations of genetically pure din-
goes and these guidelines amalgamate the
best available information on effective
approaches. These guidelines consider the
conservation values of dingoes and the influ-
ence of hybridisation on their genetic integrity.
Conservation priorities affect management
decisions for wild dogs, particularly at the
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 7

interface of developed agricultural lands and
land managed for conservation. The emphasis
in these guidelines is therefore to concentrate
on managing the impacts of wild dogs on agri-
cultural and environmental resources while
conserving the dingo as a sub-species. At the
local and regional level, land managers need
to use the information in the book to develop
and apply their own strategies. Examples of
successful strategic approaches, both hypo-
thetical and real, involving private and govern-
ment land managers are given in Chapter 7.
These guidelines outline best practices based
on present knowledge. A number of defi-
ciencies in that knowledge are identified in
Chapter 8. It is expected that best practices
will evolve through adaptive management
and that community-based groups will
become more involved in the strategic man-
agement of wild dogs. These guidelines
allow local groups to own the pest or conser-
vation problem as well as management
strategies derived from the guidelines. It is
intended that these guidelines will also assist
State and Territory governments in their role
of providing legislative, technical and policy
support for the management of dingoes and
other wild dogs.
All dollars have been converted to
1999–2000 Australian dollars unless
otherwise stated in the text.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
8

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 9
Problem definition
(Chapters 3 and 4
and Sections 6.2,
6.3 and 7.2)
• what is the problem
– predation
– conservation
• who has the problem
• who else is involved
• define impact
– economic
– environmental
• measure impact
• mapping
Management Plan
(Chapters 5 and 6 and
Section 7.3)
• define objectives
• partnerships
• government role
• select management options
– local eradication
– conservation
– strategic management
– reactive management
– no dog control
• develop a management
strategy
• define performance
criteria
Implementation
(Sections 6.4 and
7.4)
• group action
– ownership
• whole farm
catchment/district
• government role
• monitoring regime
Monitoring and
Evaluation
(Sections 6.2, 6.3 and
7.5)
• assess control and
conservation
• compare over time
• compare techniques
• evaluation of
outcomes
Figure 1: Strategic approach to managing the impacts of wild dogs (after Braysher 1993).

hnbb

Summary
There is currently debate about the correct
taxonomy of dingoes and other wild dogs.
Both are derived from wolves (Canis lupus
ssp.). In this book, the scientific names Canis
lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris are
recommended for the subspecies dingo and
domestic dog respectively.
Dingoes were brought to Australia from Asia
about 4000 years ago. They were present in
Asia possibly 10 000 to 14 000 years ago
and were derived from wolves. The dispersal
of dingoes throughout Australia was aided
by Aboriginal people who used dingoes for
food, companions, hunting-aids and bed-
warmers. The dingo never reached
Tasmania. Domestic dogs were brought into
Australia by Europeans as early as 1788
and their release into the wild has contin-
ued since then.
The distribution of dingoes in Australia has
decreased since European settlement, although
the abundance of wild dogs in some areas
may have increased due to the provision of
permanent water. Food, water and cover are
probably the most important factors affecting
the distribution of wild dogs in areas without
intensive control. Dog-proof fences that protect
sheep from predation also limit the distribution
of wild dogs.
1.1 Nomenclature
The scientific names applied to animals that
have been selected by domestication are at
present the subject of much debate in taxo-
nomic circles (Gentry et al. 1996; Brisbin
1998). Wild-living dogs of Australia are mem-
bers of the family Canidae, belonging to the
order Carnivora. The dog, C. familiaris, is
the type species for the genus Canis,
although it is not considered a natural
species but rather one developed by humans
from grey wolves (C. lupus) (Stains 1975).
Analyses of chromosomes have shown that
the karyotypes of C. lupus and C. familiaris
cannot be differentiated (Chiarelli 1975).
While this does not assist in the differentia-
tion of Canis species, it demonstrates recent
or close common evolutionary lineage.
The name ‘dingo’ is probably a European cor-
ruption of the word ‘tingo’, used by Aboriginal
people at Port Jackson to describe camp din-
goes (Thomson 1870). Other Aboriginal names
for dingoes include ‘warrigal’, ‘maliki’ (camp
dogs) and ‘wantibirri’ (wild dingoes)
(Breckwoldt 1988). The scientific name of the
dingo has undergone much synonymy but in
1982, the specific designation Canis lupus
dingo was recommended (Honacki et al.
1982). This name was proposed to reflect their
wolf ancestry, the uniformity of dingo popula-
tions throughout their huge distribution in Asia
and Australia and ‘universal usage’; however,
C. l. dingo is not in common usage. Of 109
documents in a search for the keyword ‘dingo’
in the Wildlife Worldwide database, 1935 to
June 1995 (National Information Services
Corporation), none used this nomenclature.
Canis familiaris dingo was the most common-
ly used name for dingoes. Domestic and feral
dogs were usually grouped as C. f. familiaris.
The name C. f. dingo has not been suppressed
and is still in common usage (Dr J. Clutton-
Brock, British Museum, London, pers. comm.
1997).
The names C. f. dingo for the dingo proportion
of the wild dog population and C. f. familiaris
for both wild-living and commensal domestic
dogs have the greatest use in scientific litera-
ture. It logically follows from the derivation by
human selection of both dingoes and dogs
from wolves and the genetic similarities that all
three animals should be C. lupus. Wolves are
morphologically separable from both dingoes
and domestic breeds of dog (Lawrence and
Bossert 1967) and have such morphological
and behavioural dissimilarities (Newsome et al.
1980) for all three to be considered separate
subspecies allocated sub-specific names,
lupus, dingo and familiaris respectively. This
delineation of the classification of dingoes and
other wild dogs has the potential to affect man-
agement strategies through acts of law (Brisbin
1998).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 11
1. Nomenclature, history, distribution and abundance

Corbett (1995a) concludes that wild-living
dogs in Australia are subspecies of C. lupus,
that is C. l. dingo and C. l. familiaris, but
these designations are yet to be formally
accepted (Corbett 1995b). However, because
of genetic similarities that indicate common
lineage with wolves and sufficient differ-
ences that they justifiably be regarded as dis-
tinct sub-species, the recommended nomen-
clature is: dingoes, C. l. dingo; and domestic
dogs, C. l. familiaris. Recent evidence, based
on skull morphology, size, coat colour and
reproduction, indicates the existence of
regionally distinct populations of dingoes
between Australia and Thailand (Corbett
1985; 1995a) but not within Australia
(Corbett in press).
‘Delineation of the
classification of dingoes and
other wild dogs has the potential
to affect management strategies
through acts of law’.
The terms wild dog, feral dog, dingo and
hybrids mean different things. We define the
various meanings as follows:
Dingoes: native dogs of Asia. Dingoes were
present in Australia before European settle-
ment and still occur in the wild here. Pure
dingoes are populations or individuals that
have not hybridised with domestic dogs or
hybrids.
Domestic dogs: dog breeds (other than din-
goes) selectively bred by humans, initially
from wolves and/or dingoes, that usually
live in association with humans. Introduced
to Australia by European settlers.
Hybrids: dogs resulting from crossbreeding
of a dingo and a domestic dog and the
descendants of crossbred progeny.
Wild dogs: all wild-living dogs (including
dingoes and hybrids).
Feral dogs: wild-living domestic dogs.
Free-roaming dogs: dogs that are owned
by humans but not restrained so they are free
to travel away from their owner’s residence.
Commensal dogs: wild dogs (including
dingoes and free-roaming domestic dogs)
living in close association with but indepen-
dently of humans.
Where we were unable to ascertain the sta-
tus of animals in the publications consulted,
we have followed the original authors’
usage. Whether this usage is in accordance
with the above definitions is unknown.
1.2 Origin, spread and
distribution of dingoes
throughout the world
Recent work using molecular techniques
(DNA fingerprinting) indicates that a dingo-
like canid existed perhaps 100 000 before pre-
sent (BP) and that it was distinctly dingo-like
about 10 000–14 000 BP (Gentry et al. 1996).
However, the earliest known dingo-like fos-
sils are from Thailand (dated at 5500 BP) and
Vietnam (5000 BP) (Higham et al. 1980).
Based on skull morphology, these early
canids evolved from the pale-footed (also
known as the Indian) wolf (C. l. pallipes)
and/or the Arabian wolf (C. l. arabs) between
6000 and 10 000 years ago (Corbett 1995a).
‘The dingo’s general
morphology has remained
virtually unchanged for the past
5500 years, although this
situation is now rapidly
changing through hybridisation
with domestic dogs.’
This phase of rapid evolution coincided with
the time when people in southern Asia
changed their nomadic hunter-gatherer
lifestyle to a settled agricultural subsistence
that allowed commensal relationships to
develop between wild animals and people
(Clutton-Brock 1989; 1992). Effectively this
was the start of the evolution of the early
dingo-like canids into dingoes and other dogs,
but subsequent evolution proceeded along
different pathways in western and eastern
Asia, and at different rates.
In western Asia and southern Europe, people
selectively bred these primitive canids to
improve the characteristics of dogs for hunting,
herding, hauling, guarding, scavenging and
Bureau of Rural Sciences
12

fighting, as well as for therapeutic, companion,
symbolic and novelty values (that is, domesti-
cation). The outcome is the immense range of
size, shape, colour and temperament found in
the 600 or so modern domestic breeds of dogs.
In eastern Asia, people used the early canids
for food, hunting, alerting and perhaps for
cultural reasons, but they were not selective-
ly bred. Morphological comparisons of skulls
of the early Asian fossils show a close simi-
larity with modern dingoes from Thailand
and Australia, but a clear difference to mod-
ern domestic dogs (Corbett 1985; 1995a).
There are also close similarities in body
shape, breeding pattern, coat colour and
social behaviours between dingoes in south-
east Asia and Australia. This indicates that
the dingo’s general morphology has
remained virtually unchanged for the past
5500 years, although this situation is now
rapidly changing through hybridisation with
domestic dogs (Section 2.9).
The early dingo became cosmopolitan through
its association with the movements of early
humans as their populations expanded
(Bellwood 1978, 1984; Thorne and Raymond
1989). It was during this expansion that din-
goes were transported to Australia where the
most recent introductions were by the
Macassan trepangers (90–350 years ago)
(Macknight 1976), and the ‘boat people’ from
Vietnam and Indonesia.
Dingoes probably accompanied the Asian
seafarers mainly as a source of fresh food
during long sea voyages, or as guard dogs
during stopovers. There were also cultural
reasons for transporting dingoes (Clutton-
Brock 1977; Medway 1977;Corbett 1995a).
The primitive dogs of most Pacific islands
(Titcombe 1969), the ancient kirri dog of
New Zealand (Colenso 1877; Bay-Petersen
1979), the basenji in the African Congo (Coe
1997), and the New Guinea singing dog
(Troughton 1957) are descended from south-
east Asian dingoes. According to fossil evi-
dence, the primitive dogs of the Americas
were also morphologically very similar to
dingoes and they probably arrived there
together with people via the Bering Strait
(Olsen and Olsen 1977). The Carolina dog is
the remaining descendent of the early
Amerindian canids (Brisbin 1989).
1.3 Introduction, spread and
distribution of dingoes and
other wild dogs in Australia
1.3.1 Introduction to Australia
The oldest reliably dated dingo remains in
Australia are from 3450 ± 95 years BP
(Milham and Thompson 1976) and fossils of
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 13
Thai dingo, which has similar morphology to the Australian dingo (Source: L. Corbett).

about this age have been found throughout
mainland Australia (White and O’Connell
1982). This suggests that, having reached this
continent, dingoes colonised the mainland
and many offshore islands quickly and com-
pletely, although they never inhabited
Tasmania.
This dispersal was probably assisted by
Aboriginal people who had arrived on the
continent at least 40 thousand years earlier.
Some Aboriginal tribes used dingoes to hunt
game, especially kangaroos and wallabies
(Macropus spp.), possums (Phalangeroidea)
and echidnas (Tachyglossus aculeatus). Some
Aboriginal people suckled pups and slept with
dingoes for warmth (Lumholtz 1889; Finlayson
1935; White 1972; Dixon and Huxley 1985;
Pickering 1992). Dingoes are well-represented
in Aboriginal mythology and rock art
(Breckwoldt 1988).
Domestic dogs were first introduced into
Australia in 1788 (Australian Geographic
Society 1996) and dispersal into the wild
(both deliberate and accidental) has been
continuing since then. The assumed source
of feral dogs in Australia is the abandon-
ment, neglect, loss or deliberate release into
the wild of domestic dogs by humans since
1788 (Gould 1863; Corbett 1995a). Although
there are few records of such releases, their
occurrence is supported by reports of free-
living dogs of specific breeds being seen or
captured in remote areas (Newsome and
Corbett 1985; Jones 1990; Corbett 1995a).
Some of the larger feral dogs may have been
bred to hunt feral pigs and other game and
become lost on hunting expeditions. The
incidence of C. l. familiaris and hybrids in
wild dog populations is higher in south-east-
ern Australia than in inland and north-west-
ern Australia (Newsome and Corbett 1982;
1985; Jones 1990; Thomson 1992a).
1.3.2 Distribution in Australia
The distribution of dingoes in Australia (Figure
2) has been reduced since European settle-
ment in 1788, when dingoes occurred through-
out the mainland. For example, in South
Australia they now occupy about 60% of their
former range (P. Bird, Primary Industries and
Resources, South Australia, pers. comm. 1999).
However, the abundance of dingoes is likely to
have increased over much of their remaining
range (Corbett 1995a) as a result of increases in
watering points and food supplies. Dingoes
and other wild dogs are widely distributed
through mainland Australia to the north and
west of the barrier fence (Breckwoldt 1988;
Thomson and Marsack 1992). Most popula-
tions throughout Australia comprise pure din-
goes, although in south-eastern Australia the
majority are hybrids (Figure 2) (Newsome and
Corbett 1985; Jones 1990).
‘Control by humans has
had significant impact on the
distribution and abundance of
wild dogs since European
settlement.’
In Queensland, most wild dogs occur out-
side the Dog Fence (Figure 2 and Chapter 6)
which surrounds the sheep grazing areas of
central and southern Queensland although
there is no information about relative dog
densities either side of the fence (Fleming et
al. 1992). Although wild dogs sporadically
occur in the Western Division inside the Dog
Fence that runs along the north-western bor-
ders of New South Wales, wild dogs are most
abundant and most commonly occur in
tableland and coastal environments in the
east of the State. The highest densities and
greatest impact of wild dogs are in the
Northern and Southern Tablelands, the latter
being contiguous with the Eastern Highlands
of Victoria which is the location of most wild
dogs in that State (Mitchell 1986). The activi-
ties of free-roaming dogs are most commonly
centred near towns and cities (Coman and
Robinson 1989; Meek 1999).
The absence of wild dogs from most of the
more closely settled and agriculturally devel-
oped areas, and areas within the exclusion
fence, indicates that control by humans has
had a significant impact on the distribution
and abundance of wild dogs since European
settlement.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
14

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 15
Common
Uncommon
Generally common, but high levels of
control within parts of this zone mean that
dingoes may be absent in certain areas.
Naturally sparse
Absent
Predominantly cattle
Absent
Predominantly sheep
Sheep and Cattle
Dog-proof
fence
Dog-proof
fence
A
A
B
C
Dingoes, hybrids and feral dogs
A
Known hybridisation with feral dogs
B
Area within recently rehabilitated
Queensland Barrier Fence.
Dingo numbers likely to decline.
C
Mostly pure dingoes - above dashed line
D
D
D
Distribution of Wild Dogs
Distribution of Livestock
Perth
Alice
Springs
Adelaide
Melbourne
Canberra Sydney
Darwin
Hobart
Darwin
Hobart
Brisbane
Fraser Island
Fraser Island
Townsville
Perth
Alice
Springs
Adelaide
Melbourne
Canberra Sydney
Brisbane
Townsville
Section of
rabbit-proof fence
within dog-proof fence
Section of
rabbit-proof fence
within dog-proof fence
Figure 2: Distribution of wild dogs and livestock (after Breckwoldt 1988; Corbett 1995a; Fleming 1996b)

Summary
The average adult dingo in Australia stands
57 centimetres at the shoulder, is 123 cen-
timetres long from nose to tail tip and
weighs 16 kilograms. Dingoes are smaller in
Asia. Feral dogs of up to 60 kilograms have
been recorded but most are less than 20
kilograms and their height and length are
similarly variable.
The coat of dingoes is typically ginger but
varies from sandy-yellow to red-ginger and
is occasionally black-and-tan, white or
black. Most dingoes have white markings on
the feet, tail tip and chest, some have black
muzzles and all have upright ears and
bushy tails. Coats with a dark dorsal strip or
dappling in the white areas usually indicate
hybrids. Both hybrids and feral dogs have
highly variable coat colours and patterns.
Pure dingoes have only one oestrus cycle in
a year whereas hybrids and domestic dogs
may have two cycles. Dingoes also differ
from hybrids and domestic dogs in some
skull characteristics and dingoes usually do
not bark whereas most hybrids and domestic
dogs do. Hybridisation between dingoes and
other wild dogs is becoming more common.
The present distribution of dingoes and
other wild dogs covers most of the mainland
except for the sheep and cereal growing
areas of south-eastern Australia. They prefer
habitats that have adequate free water and
cover for concealment. Wild dogs live in
small groups or packs in territories where the
home ranges of individuals vary between 10
and 300 square kilometres. However, there
is considerable overlap in the home ranges
of pack members. Wild dogs eat a diverse
range of foods, from insects to buffalo.
Hunting group size and hunting strategies
differ according to prey type to maximise
hunting success. Larger groups of wild dogs
are more successful when hunting large
kangaroos and cattle and solitary dogs are
more successful when hunting rabbits and
small macropods. The main prey are: mag-
pie geese, rodents and agile wallabies in the
Top End (Kakadu National Park); rabbits,
rodents, lizards and red kangaroos in cen-
tral Australia; euros and red kangaroos in
north-west Australia; rabbits in the
Nullarbor region; and wallabies, possums
and wombats in eastern Australia. In Asia
most dingoes have a commensal relation-
ship with humans and mainly eat rice, veg-
etables and other table scraps.
Female dingoes become sexually mature by
two years, although some do not breed in
droughts. Males in arid Australia also have
a seasonal breeding cycle of about six
months. Gestation takes about 63 days and
litters of 1–10 pups (the average is 5) are
whelped in winter, usually in an under-
ground den. Dingo pups usually forage
independently of their parents at 3–4
months or, if in a pack, when the next
breeding season begins. In eastern Australia
pups may become independent at 6 months
or stay in the family group for up to 12
months.
2.1 General description
2.1.1 Size and coat colour
The average measurements of a mature
dingo in Australia are: total length, 123 cen-
timetres; shoulder height, 57 centimetres;
head length, 22 centimetres; ear length, 10
centimetres; hindfoot length, 19 centimetres;
tail length, 31 centimetres; and weight, 16
kilograms (Thomson 1992a; Corbett 1995a;).
Males are universally larger and heavier than
females. Dingoes from northern and north-
western Australia are larger than dingoes in
central and southern regions. All Australian
dingoes are heavier than their Asian counter-
parts (Corbett 1995a). Feral dogs may weigh
up to 60 kilograms (Korn and Fleming 1989)
but are usually 11–24 kilograms (males), and
10–22 kilograms (females) (Jones 1990).
Free-roaming domestic dogs in Meek’s
(1998) study near Jervis Bay ranged from
15–31 kilograms.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 17
2. Biology and ecology

Bureau of Rural Sciences
18
Hybridisation may be obvious as in this case, but other hybrids may be hard to distinguish from pure dingoes, posing
management problems in conservation areas (Source: L. Corbett).
Feral dogs may weigh up to 60 kilograms (Source: P. Fleming).

In order of frequency of occurrence, the coat
colours of pure dingoes are: ginger (red to
sandy), black and tan, white and black
(Newsome and Corbett 1985). Most dingoes
have white points (white toes, white feet or
white socks and a white tail tip) (Newsome
and Corbett 1985; Thomson 1992a). According
to early explorers’ reports, solid black dingoes,
widespread throughout Asia, may once have
been widespread in Australia (‘Collin’s
Voyage’, undated c. 1790 and ‘Mr Gilbert’s
note’, undated, cited in Gould 1863) but they
have been rarely recorded in Australia in
recent times. However, animals from a popu-
lation in the Victorian and South Australian
mallee are consistently black with white points
(P. Bird, Primary Industries and Resources,
South Australia, pers. comm. 1999).
All other colours including sable (sandy with
black shoulders and back, commonly seen in
German Shepherd breeds), brindle, patchy
ginger and white and patchy black and white
indicate hybrids or domestic dogs. Ginger-
coloured hybrids, usually resulting from hybri-
dising with heelers, kelpies or collies, appear
very similar to pure dingoes and are often
impossible to distinguish on external features
(Figure 3).
2.1.2 Longevity and methods to
assess age of wild dogs
In the wild, dingoes can live for 10 years and
feral dogs for at least 12 years, but most die
at about 5–7 years. Methods to estimate the
age of wild dogs use: head length and eye-
lens weight (Catling et al. 1991); the weight
or length of bacula (penis bones — juvenile,
immature and mature adult age classes); the
eruption pattern of adult teeth (useful up to
6 months); tooth wear (6–12 months), and
the annular cementum bands in the root tis-
sue of teeth (dogs older than 12 months)
(Jones 1990). Alternative methods use clo-
sure of the foramen at the root tip of canine
teeth to distinguish juveniles from older ani-
mals; and for dingoes with closed root tips
on all canines, the width of the pulp cavity of
canine teeth distinguishes yearlings from
adults (Thomson and Rose 1992). Direct
observation is also used to distinguish juve-
niles from older animals.
2.1.3 Water needs
Wild dogs generally drink water every day,
about one litre in summer and half a litre in
winter (Newsome et al. 1973). In winter in
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 19
Figure 3: The pelts of wild dogs, showing a variety of colours (Source: NSW Agriculture).

arid areas, when prey such as long-haired
rats (Rattus villosissimus) are plentiful, din-
goes may live solely by absorbing water
from prey (Green 1973). Also, in arid central
Australia, many weaned pups obtain most of
their water from food. Females have some-
times been observed to carry water in their
bellies to dens and regurgitate it for their
pups (Corbett and Newsome 1975).
During lactation, captive females have
almost no increase in their water intake
because they ingest the faeces and urine of
their small pups, thus recycling the water
they contain as well as keeping the den
clean (Green 1973). Wild-living dogs proba-
bly have higher rates of water turnover than
dogs fed by people because they need to
pursue and catch their own food.
2.2 Habitats
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, dingoes
occurred across all of mainland Australia but
were absent from Tasmania. They probably
occupied all habitats, although at various
densities. Today, the overall distribution of
dingoes has been reduced by the long histo-
ry of control and exclusion fencing, particu-
larly in the sheep grazing areas of the conti-
nent (Figure 2). They are absent from the
majority of New South Wales and Victoria
except for the eastern highlands and coast of
both States, from the south-east third of
South Australia, and from most of the south-
west tip of Western Australia (Figure 2).
‘Dingo numbers may
have increased greatly in some
arid areas since European
settlement as a result of the
pastoral industry, more
watering points and the
introduction of rabbits.’
Habitat use by wild dogs has not been stud-
ied in detail. Their present distribution cov-
ers the majority of mainland habitat types,
and they are considered common across this
range except for the arid eastern half of
Western Australia and adjoining parts of
South Australia and the Northern Territory
where they are thought to be naturally
sparse (Figure 2). Corbett (1995a) has sug-
gested that dingo numbers may have
increased greatly in some arid areas since
European settlement as a result of the pas-
toral industry, more watering points and the
introduction of rabbits (Section 2.8.4).
On a smaller scale, wild dogs favour some
habitats more than others. These preferences
appear to be related to habitat features such
as prey distribution, presence of cover or
other shelter and presence of water. In the
hot, semi-arid Fortescue River region of
Western Australia, for example, packs of din-
goes spend proportionately more time in
riverine areas than in other parts of their
range (Thomson 1992d). This is likely to be
associated with the presence of water, thicker
cover and greater prey abundance in the
riverine areas.
2.3 Diet and hunting strategies
2.3.1 Diet of wild dogs in Australia
The diet of wild dogs has been studied more
extensively than any other aspect of their
biology. Over the past 30 years or so, almost
13 000 stomach and faecal samples from six
major climatic regions have been analysed.
Of 177 prey species identified, most were
mammals (72.3% by occurrence, 71 species);
others were birds (18.8%, 53 species), vege-
tation (3.3%, mainly seeds), reptiles (1.8%,
23 species) and an assortment of insects,
fish, crabs and frogs (3.8%, 28 species)
(Table 1; Corbett 1995a).
‘Dietary information may be
misleading because wild dogs will
kill stock without eating them and
conversely because canids often
take livestock carrion.’
Despite the large range of prey eaten by wild
dogs throughout Australia, almost 80% of the
diet comprised only ten species. In order of
greatest frequency these were: red kangaroo
(Macropus rufus), rabbit, swamp wallaby
(Wallabia bicolor), cattle, dusky rat (Rattus
colletti), magpie goose (Anseranas semipal-
mata), brushtail possum (Trichosurus
Bureau of Rural Sciences
20

vulpecula), long-haired rat, agile wallaby
(Macropus agilis) and common wombat
(Vombatus ursinus). Of these, only cattle
(mostly as carrion) were eaten in each of the
six regions reported in Corbett (1995a). This
narrow range of major prey indicates that
wild dogs are specialists and not the oppor-
tunistic generalists they are often assumed to
be. However, wild dogs do use a broad
range of hunting tactics involving solitary
and cooperative hunting in groups (Section
2.3.4).
Fresh sheep and cattle rarely occur in the
diets of wild dogs (Robertshaw and Harden
1985a; Lunney et al. 1990; Corbett 1995a).
However, this may reflect the relatively low
abundance of livestock in many of the areas
where samples were taken, sheep in particu-
lar being few or at low density in most stud-
ies. For arid and semi-arid cattle country, the
absence of cattle in the diets of wild dogs
may reflect the abundance and ease of pro-
curement of native prey rather than the den-
sity of cattle. Thomson (1992c) found that
sheep were an important component of the
diet of dingoes on a pastoral lease in north-
west Western Australia where merino sheep
were the main livestock enterprise. In con-
trast, livestock were a minor component of
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 21
Table 1: The occurrence of major food groups (% of samples) in the diet of dingoes and other wild dogs in Australia
(adapted from Corbett 1995a). f = faecal samples, s = stomach samples. Size categories from Brown and Triggs (1990).
Samples 6722 (f) 1480 (s) 131 (f/s) 413 (f/s) 2063 (f/s) 1993 (f)
Others 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.2 16.3 1.4
Large
mammalsa
12.5 36.4 39.7 100 22.9 0.4
Medium
mammalsb
26.6 41.7 69.5 4.8 72.6 85.5
Small
mammalsc
34.3 28.0 00.2 13.2 20.6
Reptiles 0.1 14.1 1.5 3.4 1.0 1.3
Birds 33.8 11.9 2.3 5.6 21.7 2.7
Insects 1.3 4.1 0.8 2.9 2.2 <0.1
Plants 7.3 0.1 0 0 1.2 0.2
Wet–dry
tropics Central
Australia
Nullarbor
Plain
Fortescue
region
(WA)
South-east
Australia North-east
New South
Wales
aAnimals > 10 kilograms mean adult body weight.
bAnimals 750 grams to 10 kilograms mean adult body weight.
cAnimals < 750 grams mean adult body weight.

the diet of dingoes at two other sites where
the land was vacant government land or
unimproved pastoral leases running cattle
(Thomson 1992c). Both Corbett (1995a) and
Thomson (1984a, 1992c) caution that dietary
information may be misleading, in relation to
attacks on livestock, because wild dogs will
kill stock without eating them (Section
3.6.1). Conversely, the occurrence of the
remains of livestock in the digesta and faeces
of predators does not necessarily implicate
them as serious pests (Ginsberg and
Macdonald 1990) because livestock kills can
be revisited and conversely because dogs
often take livestock carrion (Corbett 1995a).
2.3.2 Regional differences in diet
In tropical coastal regions of the Northern
Territory, dusky rats, magpie geese and agile
wallabies together form over 81% occur-
rence in the diet (Corbett 1989) and there is a
seasonal pattern of predation on them. Most
geese are eaten as fledged young during the
dry season. Dusky rats are eaten when in
high abundance, about every fourth year.
Agile wallabies are eaten throughout the
year but mainly in the wet season.
In arid central Australia, rabbits, small mam-
mals and lizards are the main prey during
sequences of good rainfall years whereas
during droughts, dead cattle provide most of
the diet (Corbett and Newsome 1987). On
the Barkly Tableland, Northern Territory,
where rabbits do not occur, no single native
species predominates in the diet except for
long-haired rats when they form huge
plagues, about once every nine years
(Newsome and Corbett 1975; Corbett 1995a).
In north-west Australia, the large native mam-
mals, red kangaroos and euros (Macropus
robustus), predominate in the diet, probably
because of the paucity of small and medium-
sized mammals, particularly rabbits
(Thomson 1992c). However, on the Nullarbor
Plains where both red kangaroos and rabbits
are abundant, rabbit occurs twice as frequent-
ly as kangaroos (Macropus spp.) in the diet
(Marsack and Campbell 1990).
In the Gulf region of Queensland, feral pigs
and agile wallabies are important diet items.
As in tropical Northern Territory, rabbits are
absent from this region. Macropods, includ-
ing eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus
giganteus), red-necked wallabies (M. rufo-
griseus), rat kangaroos (Potoroidae) and
brushtail possums were found commonly in
samples collected in the Maranoa region of
central Queensland (L. Allen, Department of
Natural Resources, Queensland, pers.
Comm. 1997; Allen et al. 1997).
‘In the Gulf region
of Queensland, feral pigs and
agile wallabies are important
diet items.’
In the cool temperate mountains of south-
eastern Australia, the medium-sized walla-
bies (swamp wallaby and red-necked walla-
by) predominate in the diet of wild dogs in
the lower slopes, and the common wombat
predominates at higher altitudes. Brushtail
possums and ringtail possums
(Pseudocheirus peregrinus) are also com-
monly eaten (Corbett 1995a).
2.3.3 Dingo diet in south-east Asia
Very few dingoes in Asia live totally indepen-
dently of humans and the main food of Asian
dingoes is carbohydrate (rice, fruit and other
food scraps) supplied by people or scav-
enged. In rural areas of Thailand and north
Sulawesi, dingoes have been observed hunt-
ing insects, rats, lizards and other live prey
along roadsides, rice paddies and in forests
(Corbett 1988a).
2.3.4 Hunting strategies, hunting
success and anti-predator
behaviour of prey
In Australia, as elsewhere, predation of live-
stock by wild dogs conflicts with human
agricultural activity. The foraging behaviour
and feeding ecology of wild dogs are of
interest because they may affect the patterns
of predation on livestock and the susceptibil-
ity of wild dogs to control practices. For
example, an abundance of alternative food
has been cited as a possible reason for the
failure of strychnine baiting programs
(Newsome et al. 1972).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
22

The foraging behaviour of dingoes has been
characterised differently by various authors
(Whitehouse 1977; Robertshaw and Harden
1986; Corbett and Newsome 1987; Newsome
and Coman 1989; Thomson 1992c). The
availability of different prey species in differ-
ent localities determines the dingo’s hunting
strategies. For example, the dingo may be:
• an opportunistic feeder (Whitehouse 1977)
• a selective predator of medium-sized
macropods, such as swamp wallabies
(Robertshaw and Harden 1986; 1989)
• a predator of large macropods (Thomson
1992c), or it may
• combine a staple diet of medium-sized
mammals with a supplementary diet of
larger mammals and an opportunistic
diet of small mammals and carrion
(Newsome et al. 1983a).
‘Alternative food has been
cited as a possible reason for the
failure of strychnine baiting
programs.’
When dingoes forage, the size of hunting
groups is determined by the type and abun-
dance of prey (Thomson 1992c; 1992d). If
large prey such as kangaroos and cattle are
being targeted, then dogs form large groups
to hunt (Corbett and Newsome 1987;
Thomson 1992d). Schoener (1971) postulat-
ed that hunting efficiency for large prey is
increased through group formation and this
hypothesis is supported by Kruuk’s (1972a)
study of spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta).
Kruuk (1972a) found that individual hyenas
benefited from hunting in groups because
for every doubling in the weight of prey
taken, the number of hyenas that were fed
increased threefold. In addition, when
canids hunt in groups they are able to cap-
ture larger prey (Van Valkenburgh and
Koepfli 1993).
Hunting kangaroos and wallabies
Throughout Australia various species of
macropods (mean adult weight 17–66 kilo-
grams) are the most commonly killed prey
(Corbett 1995a) and the tactics dingoes use
to catch them are generally the same: they
sight them, bail them up, then kill them.
Groups of dingoes are more than three times
as successful at bailing up kangaroos and
more than twice as successful at killing them
than dingoes hunting by themselves. For
example, in the Fortescue River region in
north-west Australia, the success rate for sin-
gle dingoes bailing up and killing was 5.5%
for red kangaroos and 33.3% for euros. The
equivalent success rate for groups of three or
more dingoes hunting together was 18.9%
and 74.2% respectively (Thomson 1992c).
In contrast, Marsack and Campbell (1990)
reported that all attacks on red kangaroos
observed in the Nullarbor region of Western
Australia (sample size = 10) were by solitary
dingoes. However, this may have been
unusual because the primary prey of dingoes
in the Nullarbor region are rabbits and soli-
tary wild dogs are more successful than
groups when hunting rabbits. Therefore,
dingoes were probably hunting alone for
rabbits when they saw a red kangaroo and
took the opportunity to hunt it.
Jarman and Wright (1993) reported observa-
tions of attacks on eastern grey kangaroos
by wild dogs at Wallaby Creek in north-east-
ern New South Wales. The wild dogs they
saw with grey kangaroos were more often in
groups than the dogs seen without kanga-
roos. However, this does not mean that wild
dogs usually formed groups to hunt large
macropods in the area because wild dogs
were seen in groups in only 21.3% of all
observations of wild dogs hunting kangaroos
(Jarman and Wright 1993). Solitary wild dogs
were also observed hunting red-necked wal-
labies (Jarman and Wright 1993), the most
abundant medium-sized macropod at
Wallaby Creek (Southwell 1987).
The advantage of numbers when pursuing
large kangaroos is that the leading dingo
often makes the kangaroo change direction
into the path of other dingoes involved in
the chase, who in turn are skilled at cutting
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 23

corners; the combined effort soon exhausts
the quarry and it is easily bailed up
(Thomson 1992c). This technique is similar
to that used by wolves (Canis lupus) (Mech
1970), hyenas (Kruuk 1972a) and African
hunting dogs (Lycaon pictus) (Bekoff 1975).
Another variation that African hunting dogs
and dingoes sometimes use is the ‘relay
hunt’, in which exhausted leaders are
replaced by following pack members.
The advantage of hunting in groups when
killing large kangaroos is that wild dogs can
maintain relentless pressure on the quarry
after a successful chase. Since the leading
wild dogs become exhausted during the
chase, the killing is done by other members
of the group coming along behind them. The
quarry can also be attacked simultaneously
from several directions. Autopsies of kanga-
roos killed by wild dogs (Thomson 1992c)
suggest two patterns of attack: (1) nipping or
hamstringing the hind leg to slow the kanga-
roo sufficiently to attack its throat (on adult
and juvenile kangaroos), and (2) running
alongside and biting the dorsal thorax and
neck regions (on juveniles and small adult
females).
Wild dogs are probably more successful at
hunting large kangaroos in more open areas,
particularly arid areas where kangaroos tend
to concentrate around permanent sources of
water, especially during droughts (Corbett
1995a). This can lead to surplus killing
(Shepherd 1981). In contrast, hunting suc-
cess is lower where kangaroos use the ter-
rain to escape pursuing dingoes or hamper
their attack. In the dissected ironstone
ranges of the Fortescue River region in
north-west Australia, 62.5% of unsuccessful
attacks by groups of dingoes on adult kanga-
roos failed because the kangaroos backed
up against natural barriers, preventing attack
from the rear and reducing the attack to only
one dingo at a time (Thomson 1992c).
Presumably, the success rate of dingoes and
other wild dogs hunting grey kangaroos in the
densely forested regions of eastern Australia is
also low because of similar obstacles, but little
information is available. However, the appar-
ent differences between hunting success in
open and closed habitats may be reflected in
the alert and flight distances of kangaroos in
these habitats. Eastern grey kangaroos
(Jarman and Wright 1993) alert to dingoes
sooner than red kangaroos (Shepherd 1981)
(means: 121 metres and 150 metres respective-
ly) but both flee at similar distances (means: 98
metres and 105 metres respectively).
‘Hunting tactics developed for
macropods pre-adapted wild dogs
for hunting sheep and cattle.’
There are many anecdotal records of adult
kangaroos and wallabies (Macropus spp.)
taking to water to escape attack by dingoes
(Bacon 1955). This ploy is unlikely to be suc-
cessful if there is no escape route (as at a
small dam or waterhole) because the din-
goes often wait for the quarry to emerge and
then continue the attack. Most reports of
kangaroos drowning dogs that enter the
water to attack them relate to domestic dogs
rather than dingoes.
The tactics dingoes use to chase and kill
small and medium-sized macropods (mean
adult weight 3–15 kilograms) are similar to
those they use for large kangaroos, but some
differences are apparent. Dingoes hunting
alone rely more on scent than sight to trail
the quarry, so they are often several hundred
metres behind them and the chase may last
for several hours. The success rate of lone
dingoes hunting medium-sized macropods is
probably greater than it is for lone dingoes
hunting large macropods, but there are no
data to confirm this.
In north-eastern New South Wales,
Robertshaw and Harden (1986) recorded
that female swamp wallabies pursued by
dingoes eject their pouch young (greater
than approximately 800 grams), apparently
because they are a burden when escaping
predators. However, there are no data on
whether or not more females escape by this
ploy; it is only known that the population
age structure of wallabies is altered.
Most studies indicate that wild dogs killed
the young of large (mean adult weight >15
kilograms) and medium-sized macropods
more frequently than they killed adults. For
example, in arid north-western New South
Wales, Shepherd (1981) recorded that almost
Bureau of Rural Sciences
24

all of the 83 red kangaroos killed by a group
of five dingoes around a dam were juveniles
less than 18 kilograms (96.4%) and most
were females (81.3%). In the moist forested
mountains of north-eastern New South
Wales dingoes also indicated a strong prefer-
ence for dependent juvenile swamp walla-
bies (32%), but not for gender (Robertshaw
and Harden 1985b, 1986). Several studies
have concluded that large male kangaroos
are not routine prey for wild dogs (Shepherd
1981; Robertshaw and Harden 1989; Jarman
and Wright 1993; Wright 1993).
Hunting tactics developed for macropods
pre-adapted wild dogs for hunting sheep,
cattle and other large animals. These tactics
may also result in surplus killing of sheep
and cattle.
Hunting rabbits and small prey
In central Australia, dingoes usually hunt
alone to catch rabbits, often by sighting and
running them down, or by scenting and
pouncing on a rabbit in a grass hutch. Their
greatest success apparently comes from
knowing where to find rabbit warrens, espe-
cially warrens containing rabbit kittens; and
dingoes, in groups or alone, include such
warrens in their regular hunting circuit
(Corbett 1995a). Hunting success is also like-
ly to be related to rabbit density and age
structure but there are few data; Corbett
(1995a) observed a dingo hunting alone for
one hour in a rabbit-infested area, with 80
holes investigated, and two successful kills
from four attempts.
Dingoes mainly rely on their hearing and
smell to find rodents, grasshoppers and
other small prey moving about in grass and
other vegetation. They capture these prey by
pouncing on them.
Hunting birds
Many adult birds are captured when they are
moulting and unable to fly. Dingoes also eat
young nestlings and newly fledged birds that
are easily captured. For example, at a coastal
salt lake in south-east Australia, a dingo ‘cor-
nered’ six moulting black swans (Cygnus
atratus) in a small shallow inlet. When the
swans made a break for open water, a second
dingo rushed out of the fringing scrub and
they swiftly dispatched all six swans with
bites across the back behind the wings; but
only four of the swans were eaten (Newsome
et al. 1983a). In the coastal wetlands of north-
ern Australia, fledgling magpie geese form a
major part of the dingoes’ diet (Corbett 1989)
and are captured in much the same way as
swans are. However, healthy adult geese
(mean weight 2.4 kilograms) are also
obtained by stealing the kills of large preda-
tory birds such as white-breasted sea eagles
(Haliaaetus leucogaster) (Corbett 1995a).
Hunting cattle, buffalo, horses and
sheep
The formation of hunting groups is usually
essential when wild dogs hunt large ungu-
lates such as cattle (Corbett and Newsome
1987; Thomson 1992c), feral horses
(Newsome and Coman 1989) and buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis). Nearly all attacks on cat-
tle and buffalo are aimed at young animals,
from the newborn to subadults; healthy full-
grown adults are rarely attacked. There are
three basic attack tactics (Corbett 1995a):
1. Constantly harass a mother with a
dependent calf. Solitary wild dogs or
groups keep the prey constantly on the
alert, so it eventually tires or relaxes its
guard enough for a dingo to deliver a
crippling bite.
2. Actively spook a mob of cattle to sepa-
rate the calves from the adults, then focus
on the calves.
3. Wait-and-watch tactic, observing and test-
ing the most vulnerable members of a
herd.
In the third tactic, a group of wild dogs, usu-
ally sits, sometimes for hours, and watches a
herd from a distance. They watch for cattle
or buffalo that exhibit unusual behaviour
that might indicate vulnerability, such as dis-
ease or injury. Common examples of such
behaviour are: cows giving birth; individuals
that are stationary or not moving with the
main body of the herd when grazing or
drinking; and calves running and frequently
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 25

bawling. Wild dogs will either attack or
harass the targeted animal directly or wait
until it dies. If the targeted individual turns
out to be healthy, the wild dogs promptly
retreat and may resume waiting and watch-
ing for other potential quarry.
Although wild dogs can kill cattle, there are
few data on how successful they are. In the
Fortescue River region of north-west
Australia, Thomson (1992c) recorded only 73
interactions between cattle and dingoes over
seven years. Most interactions (81%)
involved cattle reacting defensively to din-
goes and 26 (36%) involved attacks on
calves. However, only four calves were
killed, so the dingoes’ success rate was at
best 15% (4/26), or only 5% (4/73) if all inter-
actions are counted.
‘The formation of hunting
groups is usually essential when
wild dogs hunt cattle.’
Cattle have a greater tendency to defend
themselves than do sheep, and trained cattle
have been used to protect sheep from preda-
tors in New Mexico (Anon. 1987). The
grouping exhibited by cattle acts as an anti-
predator behaviour that reduces the risk of
an individual being taken and allows for ani-
mals on the outside of a group to aggressive-
ly defend the whole group (Alcock 1989). In
some areas of Australia, predation of calves
by wild dogs is believed to be minimised if
horned cows are run instead of polled cows
(E. Maskie, grazier, New South Wales, pers.
comm. 1984).
Wild dogs evolved for running and they can
outrun both sheep (Thomson 1992c) and
cattle (Alexander 1993). There are many
anecdotes about the dingo’s prowess at
hunting and killing sheep but the only
detailed evidence is from Thomson’s (1992c)
study in the Fortescue River region in north-
west Australia. Thomson (1984a, 1992c)
found that both groups and solitary dogs
killed sheep, that dingoes often attacked
more than one sheep in a mob, and that in
most attacks the sheep were not killed out-
right. From a total of 61 attacks, 26 sheep
(43%) were seriously injured, but only eight
(13%) were killed outright. In 69% of attacks,
dingoes broke off the attack before the
sheep was killed, although in 31% of attacks
they then attacked another sheep. Sheep
showed no aggressive defensive behaviour
and in 11 (18%) of the attacks they struggled
so little that dingoes began eating them
before inflicting a killing bite.
The reaction of sheep to the appearance of a
dog in their vicinity is to congregate in a mob
(Kilgour 1985). Sheep chased by dogs often
run in a circle, the leading animals being
turned back to the mob by a pursuing dog.
These behaviours make sheep more suscep-
tible to surplus killing.
Scavenging and caching
Dingoes readily scavenge food, particularly
cattle and kangaroo carcasses that become
plentiful during drought in arid regions of
Australia. For example, Corbett and
Newsome (1987) studied dingo diet over
seven years at Erldunda in central Australia
and found overall that cattle carrion
occurred in 6.3% of 285 stomachs compared
to remains of live cattle in only 2.1%. More
carrion was eaten in droughts (mean 10%
occurrence) than flush periods (3%).
Dingoes usually gorge themselves on the
carcasses of large prey either in one feed or
intermittently over several days until it is all
eaten (P. Thomson, unpublished data
1976–1984). Sometimes rival dingo groups
dispute over a carcass (Corbett 1995a).
‘Cattle carrion occurred
in 6.3% of stomachs compared to
remains of live cattle in
only 2.1%’.
Dingoes living on the coast regularly patrol
the beaches and scavenge fish, seals, pen-
guins and other birds that are washed up
(Newsome et al. 1983a). In Kakadu National
Park, dingoes regularly scavenge the
remains of prey underneath the nests and
feeding platforms of white-breasted sea
eagles (Corbett 1995a).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
26

In the Fortescue study, caching by dingoes
of a small euro was observed (P. Thomson,
unpublished data 1983). Captive dingoes at
Alice Springs have also been observed
caching excess food, especially dog biscuits.
In central Australia, wild dogs frequently
returned to carcasses, although these were
not buried or covered. Food remains at dens
were often abundant and always conspicu-
ously placed (L. Corbett, unpublished obs.).
2.4 Home range and movements
2.4.1 Home range
In common with most terrestrial mammals,
individual wild dogs spend the majority of
their lives within discrete areas or home
ranges. Data on the boundaries and size of
home ranges are usually derived from radio-
tracking studies of collared animals. Within
discrete social groups or packs, the home
ranges of individual pack members overlap
considerably (Section 2.5). The sizes of home
ranges appear to be determined to a large
degree by the availability of resources. Where
resources are plentiful, individuals do not
have to roam far for food or water, and home
ranges tend to be smaller. For example, radio-
tracked adult wild dogs in the heavily forested
escarpment areas of the northern tablelands
of New South Wales had a mean home range
size of 27 square kilometres, with consider-
able overlap in the ranges of different individ-
uals (Harden 1985). McIlroy et al. (1986a)
found similar sized home ranges (21.5 square
kilometres) for wild dogs in a mountainous
forest area of south-eastern Australia. These
areas have a high rainfall, a temperate climate,
and a large diversity of potential prey species
(Newsome et al. 1983a; Robertshaw and
Harden 1985a). In contrast, in the less produc-
tive arid environment of the Fortescue River
in north-west Western Australia and the
Simpson Desert in Central Australia, dingoes
had larger home ranges, averaging 95.8
square kilometres (Thomson and Marsack
1992) and 67 square kilometres (Corbett
1995a) respectively. In the Nullarbor region of
south-east Western Australia, where prey
populations fluctuated widely and water was
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 27
The social organisation of dingoes has implications for predation dynamics (Source: L. Corbett).

sparse, home ranges were larger still, ranging
from 90 to 300 square kilometres (Thomson
and Marsack 1992).
‘The sizes of home ranges
appear to be determined to a
large degree by the availability
of resources.’
Home ranges are generally stable over time,
although they may shift in response to
changes in food availability or social organi-
sation. Individuals that begin to separate
from social groups or packs, prior to dispers-
ing from their natal home range tend to roam
over larger areas (Thomson 1992d). In South
Australia, Bird (1994) estimated that 300–400
dingoes were sharing a single watering point
in a particularly arid region. Eighty individual
dingoes were simultaneously visible near
another water source. These appeared to be
merely aggregations of individuals rather
than social groupings, and probably reflect-
ed the large area serviced by widely spaced
waters, and that dingo numbers were high
because of a recent rabbit plague.
2.4.2 Movements
Harden (1985) carried out an intensive study
of short-term movements of dingoes in the
escarpments of north-eastern New South
Wales and showed that dingoes exhibited
two distinctly different patterns of move-
ment. The first was characterised by the
intense use of a small area with many
changes in direction and was believed to be
associated with hunting. The second was a
more directed movement that frequently tra-
versed a large part of the home range. One
of the functions of the latter might have been
to maintain communication between individ-
uals by regular visits to scent posts (Section
2.5.2).
In Harden’s (1985) study, the wild dogs were
active throughout the day with peaks of
activity at dawn and dusk. Hourly rates of
movement were equal for diurnal and noc-
turnal periods and the average distance
moved in 24 hours was around 15 kilome-
tres. Wild dogs spent 65% of the day active
and 35% resting. Periods of activity were
short (65% less than 60 minutes) and inter-
spersed with shorter rest periods (70% less
than 30 minutes). In contrast, in the hotter,
less vegetated environment of north-west
Western Australia, dingoes tended to be
inactive during the middle of the day, with
major peaks of activity and movement occur-
ring around dawn and dusk (Thomson
1992b). Similar patterns of activity have been
recorded for dingoes in the Simpson Desert
(Corbett 1995a) and coyotes (Canis latrans)
living in hot environments in North America
(Andelt 1985).
‘Dispersal appears to be
related to food supply and
mediated by social factors.’
In north-west Western Australia, dingoes did
not regularly travel large distances across
their ranges (mean maximum range width
was 10.5 kilometres) (Thomson 1992d).
Movements were localised, and packs tend-
ed to focus their activities in a particular sec-
tion of their range for a time, with occasional
forays into other parts of their range. This
pattern was consistent through most of the
year. The major seasonal factor influencing
movement patterns was related to the raising
of pups. This activity dramatically affected
nursing individuals, restricting their move-
ments, but other pack members were affect-
ed as well.
Dingoes displayed strong site fidelity, sel-
dom engaging in forays far beyond their
home ranges or territories (only 1.2% of all
radio-locations represented foray move-
ments) (Thomson et al. 1992a). Most foray
movements were within four kilometres of
the territory boundaries and rarely exceeded
six kilometres. There was no seasonal pat-
tern to these movements. Males were more
likely than females to engage in forays and
juvenile dingoes only engaged in forays in
the company of older dingoes. Some forays
appeared to be associated with subsequent
dispersal movements.
Dispersal represents a move that places an
animal permanently beyond the area that it
normally occupied, and usually involves
movement out of the natal home range.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
28

Dispersal appears to be related to food sup-
ply and mediated by social factors. In north-
west Western Australia, individuals as well as
groups dispersed (Thomson et al. 1992a).
Males tended to disperse further than
females and had a higher incidence of dis-
persal. One male dingo in arid central
Australia travelled 250 kilometres (Newsome
et al. 1973). Dispersal distances in the study
by Thomson et al. (1992a) ranged from
1–184 kilometres, with a mean of 20 kilome-
tres. The incidence of dispersal was highest
when the density of the dingo population
was high and food supply low, and was
facilitated by the availability of nearby vacant
areas. On the Nullarbor Plain, dingoes tend-
ed to move further than those in north-west
Western Australia particularly as dams dried
up. Less than 10% of dingoes moved more
than 50 kilometres and the longest move-
ment was 250 kilometres (Thomson and
Marsack 1992). In South Australia, the two
largest males of 59 radio-collared individuals
dispersed 150 and 225 kilometres respective-
ly after a dam they were watering at dried up
(Bird 1994). Dingo numbers were very high
throughout the region at the time and food
supply low.
Meek (1999) reported that radio-collared
free-roaming dogs travel 8–30 kilometres to
hunt macropods in bushland adjacent to the
homes of their owners. Coman and
Robinson (1989) reported that commensal
dogs from the Victorian city of Bendigo trav-
elled smaller distances, usually less than 6
kilometres. Most of these forays were into
adjacent agricultural land where livestock
were attacked in 51 of 84 forays. The man-
agement implications of wild dog move-
ments are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
2.5 Social organisation and
behaviour
2.5.1 Wild dog society
Dingoes and other wild dogs, like their wolf
(Canis lupus ssp.) forebears, are social ani-
mals. Where conditions are favourable, they
form stable packs that maintain distinct terri-
tories that overlap little with neighbouring
packs (Thomson 1992d). However, regional
variations are seen, reflecting the flexible
nature of dingo social structure (Green and
Catling 1977; Newsome et al. 1983a; Corbett
and Newsome 1987; Bird 1994). This flexibil-
ity is not surprising in view of the wide vari-
ety of habitats, prey species, climatic condi-
tions and levels of human exploitation
encountered across Australia. Studies by
Robertshaw and Harden (1986), Corbett and
Newsome (1987) and Thomson (1992d) sup-
port the notion that increasing specialisation
on larger prey such as wallabies and kanga-
roos favours increasing sociality and the for-
mation of larger groups. Corbett (1995a)
concluded that the primary function of dingo
packs is to defend hunting areas and other
essential resources.
The social organisation of dingoes in the
Fortescue River area of north-west Western
Australia provides an example of dingo soci-
ety in a relatively undisturbed ‘wilderness’
area, where euros and kangaroos were the
main prey and natural water was widely dis-
tributed (Thomson 1992d). Here, dingoes
were organised into stable packs occupying
discrete territories that overlapped little with
those of neighbouring packs. Packs com-
prised a dominant male and female and their
offspring of various ages. Territory bound-
aries were stable over time and between-
pack encounters were extremely rare. Packs
varied in size (mean monthly pack sizes for
five packs ranged from 3–12 individuals),
with smaller packs tending to be found in
the poorer areas and occupying larger
ranges. Pack members cooperated to hunt
prey and took part in communal activities
such as feeding (Section 2.3.4), resting and
raising pups. Pack members were not always
together at one time; they usually operated
in sub-groups that were flexible in size and
composition. Lone dingoes were sometimes
identified; these individuals displayed no
pack affiliations, occupied large ranges that
overlapped the mosaic of pack territories
and avoided encounters with packs. They
were probably individuals in varying stages
of dispersal, seeking a mate and a vacant
area in which to settle.
Corbett (1995a) reported a more fluid situa-
tion at Kapalga, in the northern tropical
Northern Territory. Here, stable packs occu-
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 29

pied territories, but they altered where and
what they hunted according to season and
prey availability. In the Simpson Desert,
another wilderness area, the necessity of
sharing sparsely distributed watering points
meant that distinct spatial separation of
packs was not possible. Howling and other
forms of communication (Section 2.5.2) were
more pronounced in these situations, allow-
ing a temporal separation of packs (Corbett
1995a). When prey (mostly small mammals)
were more abundant and widespread after
good rains, dingoes tended to spread out to
exploit these resources. Thus, packs were
not as constantly stable or confined to such
defined areas as in the more predictable
northern environments.
‘The influence of domestic
dogs on the social structure of
wild-living dogs, dingoes and
hybrids in Australia is
not documented.’
Research in the arid pastoral regions of cen-
tral Australia revealed that most dingoes
were seen alone, although they were loosely
bonded in small amicable groups sharing a
common living area (Corbett 1995a). Rabbits
were a major dietary item and individuals
tended to hunt alone (Section 2.3.4). The
ranges of different groups tended to overlap
considerably, sharing common resources
such as the relatively sparse watering points.
A similar pattern was observed in a relatively
undisturbed pastoral region on the Nullarbor
Plain in Western Australia (Thomson and
Marsack 1992, and unpublished data
1982–1987). Here, dingoes preyed principal-
ly on rabbits. Water was sparse and shared
by adjacent social groups and there was no
evidence of strong territoriality. Groupings
of dingoes were most commonly seen dur-
ing the months leading up to mating, during
the raising of pups, and when dingoes were
feeding on large prey (kangaroos) (Section
2.3.4).
The large degree of overlap in the home
ranges of wild dogs in north-eastern New
South Wales (Harden 1985) suggests that the
wild dogs studied were members of a single
pack. Free-roaming domestic dogs in south-
eastern Australia have also been reported
hunting or foraging in groups (Meek 1999).
Feral dogs in Baltimore, North America also
formed groups of 2–17 animals although
approximately 51% of dogs were seen alone
(Beck 1973). Free-roaming dogs in central
Victoria were usually seen in pairs (54% of
sightings) or singly (34%), with packs of
three to seven dogs being seen in 12% of
sightings (Coman and Robinson 1989). The
influence of domestic dogs on the social
structure of wild-living dogs, dingoes and
hybrids in Australia is not documented.
However, it is likely that the factors that
influence the social organisation of dingoes
in different areas would also influence the
social behaviour of feral dogs or hybrids.
2.5.2 Communication
Howling
Vocal communication is important for din-
goes and other wild dogs because they are
often spatially separated. Dingoes do not
bark in the wild as domestic dogs and
hybrids do (Corbett 1995a) but howling is
common to all wild dogs.
There are three basic types of howl used,
moans, bark-howls and snuffs, and these
have at least 10 variations (Corbett 1995a).
Howls travel over large distances and have
the purposes of locating other wild dogs,
attracting pack members and repelling
intruders from the pack home range. The fre-
quency of howling varies throughout each
day and throughout the year, and is affected
by breeding, dispersal, lactation, social sta-
bility and dispersion. Wild dogs often hunt
alone and in times of food shortage, pack
members may become more widely dis-
tributed within their home range. Howling is
more pronounced at these times (Corbett
1995a).
Scent Marking
Dogs have a highly developed sense of smell
that they employ in social communication.
They use chemical signals originating in
urine, faeces and scent glands (Ralls 1971).
Scent marking in canids is oriented to specific
objects, elicited by familiar conspicuous land-
Bureau of Rural Sciences
30

marks and novel objects or odours, and
repeated frequently on the same object
(Kleiman 1966). Scent marking probably orig-
inated as a means to familiarise and reassure
animals when they entered strange and fright-
ening situations. Bringing together of the
sexes and pack members and maintaining ter-
ritory are probably secondary functions that
are important for survival (Kleiman 1966).
‘Preliminary work has been
conducted to find attractants that
could be used to lure wild dogs to
traps or poison baits.’
There is much evidence that dingoes and wild
dogs defecate and urinate on objects at partic-
ular sites to communicate with members of
their own and rival packs (Thomson 1992b;
Corbett 1995a). The most frequently recorded
objects that wild dogs mark are grass tussocks,
small bushes, logs, fence-posts, rocks and the
faeces of other animals. Most scent posts are
located at shared resources such as water in
arid areas, hunting grounds, trails and roads,
particularly intersections. Males scent-mark,
use raised-leg urination and rake the ground
after marking more frequently than females
(Corbett 1995a). In north-west and central
Australia, raised-leg urination and ground-rak-
ing peaked in the mating season (Thomson
1992b; Corbett 1995a). One of the functions of
scent-marking may be to synchronise repro-
duction between pairs, as has been suggested
for wolves and coyotes (Rothman and Mech
1979; Wells and Bekoff 1981).
Another form of scent marking is scent rub-
bing whereby an animal rolls on its neck,
shoulders or back. Scent sources that elicit
scent rubbing are associated with food,
chemicals, catmint, urine, faeces and carcas-
es, and scent markings of conspecifics
(Reiger 1979). The function of scent rubbing
is unknown but one hypothesis is that it may
increase the social attractiveness of a particu-
lar animal (Fox 1971). Dingoes and other
wild dogs are known to scent rub this way
(Corbett 1995a).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 31
In central Australia, dingo dens are commonly developed from enlarged rabbit burrows (Source: L. Corbett).

Scent-marking may be used by managers to
assess the numbers of canids (Section 6.2.2).
For example, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service have developed a scent-sta-
tion index method to assess trends in carni-
vore populations (Roughton and Sweeny
1982). This method has not been used in
Australia for assessing dog numbers but pre-
liminary work has been conducted to find
attractants that could be used to lure wild
dogs to traps or poison baits (Jolly and Jolly
1992a,1992b; Mitchell and Kelly 1992). For
example, Jolly and Jolly (1992b) found that
about half of ten captive wild dogs respond-
ed to six chemical attractants in pen and field
trials which suggests that less expensive and
better controlled pen trials might find an
effective attractant to lure wild dogs to traps
and poisons. Those trials were conducted in
November and better responses might be
obtained from trials in the breeding season.
2.6 Reproduction
2.6.1 Breeding: dingoes
The pattern of breeding has implications for
managing dingo predation on cattle (Section
3.6.5).
Dingoes produce only one litter of pups
each year, and except for tropical habitats,
litters are usually whelped in winter. This
breeding pattern is determined by the
female’s annual oestrus cycle as males are
continuously fertile in most regions (Catling
1979). The precise onset and extent of
breeding varies with age, social status, geo-
graphic latitude, seasonal conditions and
whether animals are pure dingoes or hybrid
(Jones and Stevens 1988; Corbett 1995a).
In arid central Australia, most wild females
commence breeding when they are two
years old and usually mate in April–May,
about one month earlier than most of their
counterparts in southern temperate
Australia. In stable packs, the most dominant
(alpha) female, usually the oldest, tends to
come into oestrus before subordinate
females. Some of the subordinate females
undergo pseudopregnancy (Corbett 1988b).
During droughts, all young females less than
one-year-old and some older females do not
breed at all, and for those adults that do, the
onset of breeding is delayed by about six
weeks (Figure 4).
Pro-oestrus and oestrus periods for captive
dingoes in central Australia and domestic
dogs, as determined from vaginal smears,
last about 10–12 days (Corbett 1995a).
However, in the Fortescue River region,
behavioural data suggest that pro-oestrus
may last about 30–60 days (Thomson
1992b).
Males reach full sexual maturity at 1–3 years.
Although continuously fertile, males in hot
arid regions appear to be true seasonal
breeders with maximum testis weights
occurring about April, the peak of the mating
season (Catling et al. 1992). In contrast,
males in the cooler temperate highlands of
south-east Australia can breed throughout
the year and many successfully sire pups
with domestic bitches outside of the dingo
breeding season (Catling et al. 1992).
‘Seasonality in breeding
increases with latitude.’
Gestation lasts 61–69 days in captive din-
goes. The average litter size for dingoes is
five (range 1–10) throughout Australia and
Thailand, and usually more males are born
than females (Corbett 1995a).
Seasonality in breeding increases with lati-
tude. In temperate regions of Australia, most
dingo litters are born in winter (June–August).
Litters born in summer and autumn
(November–April) in south-east Australia,
are almost certainly from hybrid females
whereas in northern Australia, litters of pure
dingoes have been recorded in most months
with a peak in July (Corbett 1995a).
2.6.2 Breeding: feral dogs and
hybrids
Female feral dogs and hybrids of similar size
to dingoes may have two oestrus cycles each
year, although it is unlikely that they success-
fully breed twice every year (Jones and
Stevens 1988). Evidence from south-east
Australian populations of wild dogs indicates
Bureau of Rural Sciences
32

that the regular birth pulse of dingoes is dis-
rupted where there is a large proportion of
feral dogs and hybrids present (Jones and
Stevens 1988). Male domestic dogs and
hybrids do not show any seasonal changes
in testicular activity and are fertile through-
out the year (Jones and Stevens 1988).
Gestation is 58–65 days for hybrids and
domestic dogs in the same climate (Corbett
1995a). The average litter size for hybrids
and domestic dogs is similar (about 5 pups)
but varies with breed (Spira 1988).
2.6.3 Characteristics of dens
In central Australia most dens have been
recorded in enlarged rabbit-holes, caves in
rocky hills, under debris in dry creek beds,
under large tussocks of spinifex, among pro-
truding tree roots and under rock ledges
along water courses (Corbett 1995a).
In the Fortescue River region, most dens
were recorded in cave complexes in hilly ter-
rain; others were in hollow logs, under
spinifex or in enlarged goanna (Varanus
spp.) holes (Thomson 1992b). Similarly, in
tropical northern Australia, most dens were
found in enlarged burrows of large goannas,
with others under fallen trees and other
debris (Corbett 1995a). Most dens in the
Fortescue River region faced the south-east,
possibly to minimise excessive heating from
the sun (Thomson 1992b).
In contrast, in the cooler eastern highlands,
most dens have been reported in hollow
logs, old wombat burrows and occasionally
in caves under rock ledges (Corbett 1974;
Jones and Stevens 1988) and commonly
faced north (B. Harden, unpublished data
1970–84).
2.7 Mortality and disease
In south-eastern Australia, pups become
independent at 6–12 months (Harden 1981).
Those that become independent and dis-
perse at six months are less likely to survive
than those that stay with the parents for 12
months (B. Harden, unpublished data
1970–84). The higher survival may be due to
the increased hunting success that dogs in
groups may have with larger prey (Thomson
1992c) or through the adults coaching the
pups in hunting (Corbett and Newsome
1975). Coaching of pups has been observed
in captive-bred hybrids in north-east New
South Wales (T. Kempton, grazier, New
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 33
Adult, flush season
Young, flush season
Adult, drought
Young, drought
Mean uterine weight (g)
D
Month
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
J F M A M J J A S O N
Figure 4: The breeding cycle of adult (more than one-year-old) and young (less than one-year-old) female dingoes in
central Australia (adapted from Catling et al. 1992). In flush seasons, most adult females are heavily pregnant by May–July,
but not all young females become pregnant, as indicated by their low uterine weights. In droughts, young females do not
breed at all, and breeding is delayed by about six weeks for older females that do breed.

South Wales, pers. comm. 1979). In the sta-
ble packs of the Fortescue River region, most
juvenile dingoes do not become indepen-
dent and disperse in the first year, but stay in
the social group, sometimes permanently.
2.7.1 Dispersal sinks
One of the main, consistent causes of dingo
mortality is a cycle involving dingo popula-
tion density, food supply and human con-
trol. When food becomes scarce for a large
population of wild dogs in a ‘safe’ area
(source), they disperse, singly or in groups,
to resource-rich, pastoral and agricultural
areas where there are fewer wild dogs.
These are ‘danger’ areas, where human con-
trol measures are intense. Wild dogs are poi-
soned, trapped or shot here, creating vacant
areas (sinks) and perpetuating the dispersal-
mortality cycle.
For example, over nine years in the
Fortescue River region, 25 lone dingoes and
six groups (comprising 24 individuals from
fractured packs) dispersed from non-pastoral
‘safe’ areas to sheep paddocks where control
was intensive. All except one of these 49 din-
goes (98%) were eventually killed — either
trapped, poisoned or shot. This was twice
the average mortality for dingoes dispersing
to other areas (Thomson et al. 1992a).
2.7.2 Human-induced mortality
Humans have had a major impact on wild
dog populations through habitat manipula-
tion, the introduction of domestic dogs and
control practices. For example, habitat
changes associated with agriculture in south-
ern Australia caused the demise of dingoes
in these areas. Effective control programs in
targeted areas of the Fortescue River region
removed most dingoes (Thomson et al.
1992b). Human-induced mortality may also
be high for wild dogs in areas of southern
Australia where coordinated control pro-
grams operate annually. Although the effec-
tiveness of wild dog control programs varies,
severe mortality can be inflicted on wild dog
populations (Fleming et al. 1996). The effect
of trapping, poisoning and shooting on wild
dog populations is discussed in detail in
Chapter 6.
2.7.3 Parasites, diseases and
associated causes of death
Wild dogs are susceptible to all the diseases
that affect domestic dogs. Thirty-eight
species of parasites and pathogens have so
far been recorded in wild dogs. In Australia,
at least another 50 infectious organisms in
domestic dogs have been recorded (Seddon
1965a,1965b; 1966; 1967; 1968; Seddon and
Albiston 1967; Kelly 1977; Appendix A), all
of which could potentially become estab-
lished in wild dog populations. The condi-
tions under which establishment might hap-
pen and the characteristics of disease organ-
isms that would allow establishment and
persistence of these diseases require further
evaluation. Appendix A is a detailed list of
diseases affecting wild dogs.
‘Wild dogs are susceptible
to all the diseases that affect
domestic dogs.’
In most cases, diseases have little effect on
the survival of adult wild dogs. Exceptions
include: canine distemper (Paramyxovirus),
hookworms (Unicinaria stenocephala and
Ancylostoma caninum) and heartworm
(Dirofilaria immitis) in northern Australia
and south-eastern Queensland (Coman
1972a; Corbett 1995a, Meek 1998; L. Allen,
Department of Natural Resources, Queensland,
pers. comm. 1989).
The effects of most diseases and parasites on
wild dog mortality rates and morbidity rates
have not been measured. The proportion of
a population dying during a given time inter-
val is the mortality rate. Morbidity rate is the
proportion of a population affected by dis-
ease in a given time interval. The debilitating
effects on wild dogs are unknown for 45% of
dingo parasites and pathogens, but 29% (11
of 38) are known to be fatal, especially in
pups (7 of 11 fatal infections). Lungworm
(Oslerus osleri), whipworm (Trichurus
vulpis), hepatitis (Adenovirus), coccidiosis
(Isospora rivolta and Eimeria canis), lice
(Trichodectes canis and unidentified
species) and ticks (Ixodes holocyclus,
Rhipicephalus sanguineus and Amblyomma
triguttatum) can kill pups and thereby
Bureau of Rural Sciences
34

decrease recruitment to dingo populations.
Heartworm virtually eliminated dingo popu-
lations at Kapalga (Kakadu National Park) in
the 1980s and distemper decimated Barkly
Tableland populations in the early 1960s and
again in the 1970s (Corbett 1995a).
Sarcoptic mange (causal agent Sarcoptes
scabiei) is a widespread parasitic disease in
dingo populations throughout Australia but
it is seldom debilitating. The highest preva-
lence (20%) was recorded in the Fortescue
River region where 21% of mange-affected
adult dingoes were in poor condition com-
pared to 5% for mange-free dingoes; howev-
er, only one dingo was suspected to have
died from mange (Thomson 1992b). Males
were twice as likely to be affected by mange
as females (Thomson 1992b) and it is likely
that mange is associated with particular prey
species (Corbett 1995a).
Hydatidosis (caused by the cestode
Echinococcus granulosus) results in serious
illness in infected humans and in the devalu-
ation of infected livestock carcases at slaugh-
ter (Section 3.4). E. granulosus infection
does not cause serious illness in dogs.
In central Australia, wild dogs mostly eat rab-
bits and consequently have relatively high
infestations of rabbit stickfast fleas
(Echidnophaga myrmecobii) and tapeworm
(Taenia pisiformis). By comparison, the most
common parasites of wild dogs in the nearby
Barkly Tableland are lice and an unidentified
tapeworm species which are both probably
derived from eating long-haired rats, a major
prey species in this region. Also, sarcoptic
mange is usually associated with plagues of
dusky rats in the wet–dry tropics. In south-
eastern Australia, kangaroo flies (Hippoboscid
spp.) were often found on free-roaming
domestic dogs that frequently hunted macrop-
ods (Meek 1998). These insects are most likely
to cause irritation rather than death.
2.7.4 Other causes of death
Where irruptions of rabbits are common, for
example, in arid South Australia and the
Nullarbor region of Western Australia, many
wild dogs die from starvation when the
irruption is over. Severe drought and concur-
rent declines in water availability and prey,
particularly rabbits, are also significant caus-
es of dingo mortality.
Other less common causes of mortality for
dingoes and other wild dogs include: being
run over by vehicles or horses, being chased
and killed by people on horseback (Harden
and Robertshaw 1987); buffalo and cattle
goring and kicking; snake bite; and preda-
tion on pups by wedge-tailed eagles (Aquila
audax). Unlike in north-east Thailand,
where about 200 dingoes are butchered each
week (Corbett 1985), human predation of
dingoes and other wild dogs for food no
longer occurs in Australia.
2.8 Population dynamics and
changes in abundance
2.8.1 Overview of predator
population dynamics
In contrast to the situation with dingoes, the
regulation and dynamics of populations of
other social canids such as wolves have been
extensively studied (Mech 1986; Peterson
and Page 1988). Food supply is thought to
be the principal common natural factor
affecting canid social organisation, group
stability, dispersal strategies, mortality and
reproductive success (all in turn influencing
population dynamics). The supply of prey,
predominantly herbivorous animals, is
affected by environmental conditions (espe-
cially the extent and pattern of rainfall), as
well as being influenced by the predator
itself (Section 2.3). When the effects of peo-
ple on the environment are added (altered
landscape, altered fire regimes, introduced
exotic animals, increased watering points,
imposed control on predators and some-
times prey species), it follows that the
dynamics of predator populations can be
very complex.
2.8.2 Dynamics of wild dog
populations
The most intensive study of the population
dynamics of wild dingoes was carried out in
the Fortescue River region of Western
Australia (Thomson 1992a). Dingoes were
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 35

radio-tracked over a nine-year period in an
area with minimal human disturbance. At the
start of the study, dingo numbers were rela-
tively low because of control work (trapping
and baiting) that had been undertaken in the
area. As the study progressed, dingo num-
bers increased to high levels (Figure 5).
Dingoes at that time had access to a moder-
ate and apparently adequate supply of their
principal prey, kangaroos. The area was fully
occupied by territorial packs. The popula-
tion rose as a result of reproductive success
and consequent increases in the size of the
packs. At the high population level, dingoes
began to disperse, resulting in a subsequent
fall in population size.
In the second period (1979–80, Figure 5),
population density was still high, but fell
markedly when dingoes were deliberately
exposed to aerial baiting during research tri-
als (Thomson 1986). At the time of baiting,
kangaroo numbers were low and dingoes
had begun to increase their use of other
food, including cattle carrion and smaller
prey species. The earlier signs of social per-
turbation, indicated by an increase in disper-
sals, were followed by other more dramatic
changes prior to baiting. Large packs began
to dissociate, dispersal continued, territory
shifts were recorded, and signs of changes in
activity patterns emerged. These features
have also been recorded in populations of
wolves facing food shortages (Messier 1985).
‘Monitoring to detect and act on
such circumstances is clearly a
sensible option for managers.’
After baiting removed almost all wild dogs,
re-colonisation from adjacent unbaited areas
was rapid (Figure 5). The population rose,
though not to the extent that occurred during
the first period of the study. The new immi-
grants occupied large areas, and in some
cases, their reproductive potential was
unknown. When breeding increased, young
dingoes were able to establish new territories
Bureau of Rural Sciences
36
Dingoes may be attracted to urban settlements in remote areas (for example, Moomba Tip in northern South Australia
pictured above) by the prospect of easy food. Such scenarios are likely to increase the rate of hybridisation with domestic
breeds and may also create a public nuisance (Source: P. Bird, Animal and Plant Control Commission, South
Australia).

at the edge of their natal range. This meant
that pack size did not necessarily increase as
it did during the first period of the study.
There were now vacant areas available in
which wild dogs could settle, unlike the earli-
er period, when the area was fully occupied.
There are several important implications for
wild dog management in these findings
(Section 6.4.4). One of the most obvious is
that populations of wild dogs within close
proximity to livestock pose the greatest threat
when their numbers are high and their food
supply is limited. Movements into grazing
areas are likely at these times. Monitoring to
detect and act on such circumstances is clear-
ly a sensible option for managers (Chapters 6
and 7). The research findings from the
Fortescue River study also support the strate-
gy of maintaining a buffer zone adjacent to
stocked areas, where control work is carried
out to remove resident wild dogs and create a
‘dispersal sink’ (Section 6.4.4). This reduces
the risk of wild dogs moving from the adja-
cent area into the paddocks, and also pro-
vides an area for wild dogs dispersing from
further out to settle before moving into
stocked areas (Chapter 6).
A study by Fleming et al. (1996) in north-
eastern New South Wales suggested that the
dynamics of wild dog populations under
regular high levels of control by aerial bait-
ing were greatly influenced by the annual
nature and timing of the baiting. A conceptu-
al model of population dynamics under
annual aerial baiting (Figure 6) shows that
the sink caused by annual population reduc-
tion is filled by the time of the next annual
baiting. There was evidence that the new
dogs in the area were both young dogs born
locally and immigrants. The time at which
repopulation occurred was not determined.
Repopulation and its timing obviously affect
decisions about the timing of control pro-
grams (Section 6.4.4).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 37
Density (dingoes/100 km2)
Census area (km2)
20
15
10
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
5
25
0
350
300
250
200
400
150
Figure 5: Fluctuations in dingo density (•) in the
Fortescue River region 1976–84. Census data exclude
pups but all other dingoes known to have been present
at any time during a particular quarter were counted.
Dissociation of dingoes from packs and a paucity of
ground survey work precluded an accurate tally in some
quarters (••). Population size was probably underesti-
mated in these periods. The histogram depicts the size
of the area censused in each quarter. Arrows indicate
when baiting took place (after Thomson et al. 1992b).
Abundance
3
Months
21 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Births
Aerial
baiting Aerial
baiting
Immigration
Figure 6: A conceptual model of the dynamics of a
population of wild dogs in an area exposed to annual
baiting programs (Month 1 is March) (after Fleming
1996a).

2.8.3 Social factors limiting
population growth
A number of factors influence dingo num-
bers and affect their population density
(Section 2.7). Breeding and immigration
boost numbers and mortality, and emigra-
tion depletes numbers. Mortality factors may
include disease, starvation and the direct
effects of control actions. The type of food
available, its abundance, and its dispersion
all affect the social dynamics of dingo popu-
lations, and this in turn affects population
dynamics (Section 2.3). Some of these social
factors are outlined in this section.
In most stable packs, only one litter of pups
is generally raised (Thomson et al. 1992b;
Corbett 1995a), although several females in
the pack may be capable of breeding and
may even whelp. Social factors, including
dominant female infanticide (Corbett 1988b),
appear to limit the production or raising of
additional litters. In a three-year study of a
captive dingo pack, Corbett (1988b) found
that less than half the potential increase in
dingo numbers was realised, due to inhibi-
tion of breeding in subordinates, mating
preferences by dominants, infanticide and
the killing of subordinate females. In captive
wolves, dominant males and females aggres-
sively prevent subordinates from sexual
soliciting and mating activities (Zimen 1976).
An important consequence of infanticide by
dominant females is that subordinate
females help to rear and even suckle the off-
spring of the dominant female. This repro-
ductive strategy ensures the dominant
female’s offspring not only receive addition-
al care from subordinate helpers, but also
have no competition for resources from the
offspring of other females. Infanticide in
Australian dingoes may have evolved in
response to widespread drought and fire
when packs are forced to split into smaller
units to survive on the patchy and scarce
resources available. The more pups born,
the greater the chance that some would sur-
vive adverse periods. Since most breeding
dingoes would have been closely related, at
least some of the dominant pair’s genes
would survive to the next generation if all
pregnancies went to term and if some of the
smaller social groups were able to survive.
Once groups reformed, the dominant din-
goes’ genes would be better favoured by
infanticide.
‘In most stable packs,
only one litter of pups is
generally raised.’
Breeding success can be affected in a less
direct way by food supply and the social
context. In the Fortescue study (Thomson et
al. 1992b; referred to in Section 2.3.4), din-
goes appeared to have a lower chance of
successfully raising litters when acting alone.
The absence of helpers to provide additional
food for mother and pups probably con-
tributes to poor pup survival, as does the
inability of solitary dingoes or pairs to suc-
cessfully hunt kangaroos, the primary prey
in the area. Larger groups are more success-
ful at hunting kangaroos (Section 2.3.4), an
advantage in providing food for the pack
and its offspring. When sheep, an easy prey
for solitary dingoes, became available to two
bitches who were each caring for pups large-
ly on their own, both litters were successfully
raised (Thomson et al. 1992b).
2.8.4 Changes in abundance since
European settlement
After dingoes were transported to Australia
by Asian seafarers about 4000 years ago,
their numbers would have been kept down
by food supply, social factors and diseases
systematically and periodically reducing
populations. However, following European
settlement and the development of the pas-
toral industry in inland Australia about 100
years ago (Bauer 1983), dingo numbers rose
dramatically as food such as rabbits, stock
and some macropods became more plentiful
and dams and artesian bores increased water
supply during droughts. In many of the more
closely settled areas of Australia, however,
changes to the environment and intensive
control of dingoes by shooting, trapping and
poisoning largely eradicated dingoes.
Dingoes are now absent from large tracts of
agricultural and grazing land in southern
Australia. Dingo control over the extensive
Bureau of Rural Sciences
38

pastoral areas of inland Australia was proba-
bly not as effective, although the erection of
barrier fencing probably tipped the balance
in favour of graziers in some parts of
Australia (Section 5.1.1).
‘The dingo population probably
peaked during the 1930–50s and
since then has remained high
but the proportion of hybrids
has increased greatly.’
In some instances, haphazard control work
probably was largely inefficient, in many
cases only fracturing dingo packs into smaller
units, each with a breeding female. In this
way, the dingo’s natural population suppres-
sion method, dominant female infanticide
(Corbett 1988b), was discouraged, so that
dingo numbers could increase abnormally
during flush periods. Further, most of the
victims of dingo control programs were
probably young and very old dingoes. This
meant that surviving populations tended to
consist mainly of middle-aged dingoes, the
age group most likely to mate and raise lit-
ters successfully.
The total dingo population in Australia prob-
ably peaked during the 1930–50s, and since
then numbers have remained high but the
proportion of hybrids in the overall popula-
tion has increased greatly (Corbett 1995a)
(Section 2.9). Dingo samples collected in the
1960–70s indicated that about half the wild
dog populations in southern Australia were
hybrids (Newsome and Corbett 1982), and
the most recent surveys in the early 1980s
(Jones 1990) confirmed the trend of increas-
ing hybridisation. Even in the presumed safe
bastion for pure dingoes on the mainland,
Kakadu National Park in northern Australia,
hybrids now occur (Corbett in press). If the
current rate of hybridisation continues, pure
dingoes may well be extinct by 2100 with
only hybrids and feral dogs remaining on the
Australian mainland.
Radio-tracking and mark–recapture studies
have indicated dingo densities of 0.17 per
square kilometre in Kosciusko National Park
in south-eastern Australia (McIlroy et al.
1986a) and 0.14 per square kilometre at
Kapalga in Kakadu National Park in northern
Australia (Corbett 1995a). In the Guy Fawkes
River region in north-eastern New South
Wales crude estimates (using the
index–manipulation–index technique) of
wild dog density in unpoisoned areas were
between 0.19 and 0.3 wild dogs per square
kilometre (Fleming 1996b). An adjacent area
in the Guy Fawkes River region that was
annually baited with 1080 (sodium fluoroac-
etate) had pre-baiting densities of between
0.1 and 0.17 wild dogs per square kilometre.
In the Fortescue River region the density of
dingoes in pack territories varied between
0.03 and 0.25 per square kilometre (mean
0.08 per square kilometre). In South
Australia, at the height of a rabbit plague,
dingo numbers were crudely estimated at 0.3
per square kilometre based on the maximum
number of dingoes observed visiting an iso-
lated water and the area serviced by that
water (Bird 1994).
2.9 Hybridisation
2.9.1 The extent of hybridisation
The expansion of farming and grazing activi-
ties in the nineteenth century led to the
spread of domestic and feral dogs and their
consequent hybridisation with dingoes.
More than half of the wild dog population in
southern and eastern Australia are hybrids
(Section 2.8.4; Figure 2). Although wild dog
populations in northern Australia and other
remote areas remain essentially pure din-
goes, hybrids are now being recorded there.
Even on Fraser Island, five of a sample of 35
wild dogs recently culled there were hybrid
animals (Woodall et al. 1996).
The genetic make-up of wild hybrid dogs
has not been evaluated except at the broad
level of presence or absence of domestic dog
genes in the wild dog population (Newsome
et al. 1980). Genetic evaluations have been
difficult because hybrids often look like pure
dingoes. New techniques are being devel-
oped to better assess the genetics of wild
dog populations (Wilton et al. 1999).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 39

2.9.2 The main processes of
hybridisation
Hybridisation mostly occurs when domestic
dogs go bush and dingoes come to town.
However, since interactions between din-
goes and feral dogs in the bush differ greatly
from those in urban places (Figure 7), so too
do the rates of hybridisation (Corbett 1995a).
‘Once hybrids become
more prevalent, the resultant
lessening of behavioural
differences will expedite the
hybridisation process.’
It is well known that the dogs of cattlemen,
recreational fishers, bushwalkers, holiday-
makers and Aboriginal people are occasionally
lost in the bush (Corbett 1995a). However, the
behavioural differences between dingoes and
domestic dogs seem great enough to make it
difficult for dogs to infiltrate dingo society and
breed, particularly in remote areas where there
are more dingoes. Once hybrids become more
prevalent, the resultant lessening of
behavioural differences will expedite the
hybridisation process. This could partly
explain the greater proportion of hybrids in
south-eastern Australia.
There is now a trend for people to acquire
(often illegally) dingo pups as pets. The pups
may be easily handled, but adults are usually
not good pets, simply because they are wild
animals that have not been selectively bred for
the behavioural characteristics that make a
good pet (RSPCA 1997). A pet dingo is likely to
use its owner’s home as a base from which to
roam and do as it pleases, or else it is aban-
doned when it becomes an adult. The upshot
of this pet trend is that dingo–domestic dog
contact is increased; because pet dingoes have
grown up without learning the social
behaviours that curb crossbreeding with
domestic dogs, they are more likely to
hybridise with domestic dogs than wild bred
dingoes. Many such hybrids are rejected by
owners or stray to the bush where they may
infiltrate wild dingo society and breed with
pure dingoes. This process occurs more fre-
quently in semi-rural areas near large urban
centres. If dingo breed societies promote and
sell hybrids as pure dingoes, the rate of
hybridisation will increase (Section 5.3.3).
Some of the dogs that contribute to the gene
pool of wild-living dogs are not truly feral but
are strays or free-roaming pet domestic dogs
(Meek 1998). There have been reports of
dingo-like wild dogs mating with restrained
female domestic dogs (A. Melling, grazier, New
South Wales, pers. comm. 1984).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
40
URBAN AND
RURAL CENTRES
Dingoes
BUSH AND
OUTBACK STATIONS
Domestic dogs
Stray
Lost/abandoned
(this link is inevitable)
Rejected/stray
(this link is inevitable)
Pets/reared in centres
(this link can be broken if public
attitude changes)
Hybrids
PURE DINGOES
DECREASE
MANY HYBRIDS
* Not shy
* Easy to infiltrate
domestic dog society
* Difficult to infiltrate
dingo society
* Easy to infiltrate
dingo society
FEW HYBRIDS
Figure 7: The process of hybridisation between dingoes and domestic dogs (after Corbett 1995a).

2.10 Co-occurrence with other
predators
2.10.1 European red fox
The spatial relationship between wild dogs
and the introduced European red fox (Vulpes
vulpes) in Australia is poorly understood.
Observations of an inverse relationship
between wild dog and fox abundance
(Jarman 1986) have been popularly inter-
preted to mean that wild dogs may limit the
distribution and abundance of foxes.
However, this speculation is based largely on
the correlation of relative abundances and
needs to be confirmed by a demonstration of
causality.
‘Although wild dogs may not
influence the distribution of
foxes, they do influence their
access to resources.’
In areas of eastern Australia where wild dogs
have not been excluded by human manage-
ment, there is little evidence that wild dogs
exclude foxes because the two species com-
monly co-exist (Newsome et al. 1983a;
Triggs et al. 1984; Robertshaw and Harden
1985a and unpublished data 1977–84;
Catling and Burt 1995; Fleming 1996a).
Catling and Burt (1995) found no evidence in
forested areas that foxes were excluded by,
or avoided, wild dogs. They argue that popu-
lations of red foxes in south-eastern Australia
are more likely to be limited by factors other
than the presence of wild dogs. In many
areas, the marked differences between the
habitats and management regimes of agricul-
tural (higher fox abundance) and non-agri-
cultural land (higher wild dog abundance)
confounds the comparison of the relative
abundances of the two species, and provides
a number of alternative hypotheses that
could explain observed differences in the
relative abundances of the two species.
In central Australia foxes appear to avoid
wild dogs, especially at widely spaced and
shared watering points. Wild dogs also
exclude foxes from kangaroo and cattle car-
casses during droughts (Corbett 1995a), so
that, although wild dogs may not influence
the distribution of foxes, they do influence
their access to resources. In northern South
Australia, foxes were also seen to avoid din-
goes at waters and were frequently driven
off by dingoes (P. Bird, Primary Industries
and Resources, South Australia, pers. comm.
1999).
Similar evidence exists for Western Australia.
In the Fortescue River region, the presence
of foxes was noted (sightings, captures in
traps, tracks and other signs) during a nine-
year intensive radio-tracking study of din-
goes (Thomson 1992a; unpublished data
1976–1984). In this area, foxes were relative-
ly common on the productive coastal plains,
where sheep were grazed and dingoes were
subject to intensive control. In the adjacent
rugged unstocked areas, dingoes were ini-
tially at low levels and foxes were present,
albeit in low numbers. When dingo numbers
increased, foxes were only ever recorded in
the unstocked areas at the edge of the sheep
paddocks. When dingo numbers fell, fox
activity began to appear again deeper into
the unstocked areas. Although circumstan-
tial, it seems likely that foxes were affected
by the abundance of dingoes. When dingo
numbers were low in the unstocked areas,
foxes appeared to invade from the adjacent
coastal plains.
In contrast, in another study on the Nullarbor
Plain in Western Australia (Thomson and P.
Marsack, unpublished data 1982–1987), din-
goes, foxes and feral cats commonly co-
occurred in the same local areas. Although
this seems to contradict the evidence from
the Fortescue region, there are features of
both environments that may explain the dif-
ferences. In the Nullarbor area, rabbits were
numerous and distributed relatively uniform-
ly across the landscape. Foxes would have
been able to hunt rabbits within dingo home
ranges, while avoiding resident dingoes. In
contrast, resources in the Fortescue area
were patchy and rabbits were absent.
Dingoes favoured the most productive areas
(Section 2.2), so it would have been difficult
for foxes to avoid dingoes, unless they
remained in the poorer areas. In addition,
the presence of rabbit warrens in the
Nullarbor area gave foxes an opportunity for
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 41

escape from dingoes should conflict arise.
Dingoes kill foxes (Marsack and Campbell
1990) and avoiding dingo attack would have
been more difficult for foxes in the Fortescue
area.
2.10.2 Cats
Feral cats co-occur with wild dogs through-
out most of Australia but almost nothing is
known of their interrelationships. Fleming
(1996b) found that wild dogs co-occurred
with feral cats (and red foxes and spotted-
tailed quolls (Dasyurus maculatus)) on a
regional scale in north-eastern New South
Wales but suggested that there might be
some spatial segregation at a more localised
level. Corbett (1995a) suggested that wild
dogs exclude feral cats from kangaroo and
cattle carcasses during droughts. Wild dogs
occasionally eat feral cats (Robertshaw and
Harden 1985a; Thomson 1992c, Corbett
1995a) although the impact of this on cat
populations is unknown.
2.10.3 Quolls
Prior to European settlement, dingoes almost
certainly co-occurred with the spotted-tailed
quoll, eastern quoll (D. viverrinus), western
quoll (D. geoffroii) and northern quoll (D.
hallucatus). Today, the distribution of wild
dogs and quolls has been much reduced by
habitat changes associated with European
settlement. However, dingoes and other wild
dogs still co-exist in many areas with all
quoll species except the eastern quoll, which
is believed to be extinct on mainland
Australia.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
42

Summary
Wild dogs have impacts on agriculture
through predation of livestock. Measuring
stock losses alone usually underestimates the
true economic cost of wild dogs because
these estimates do not include costs of dog
control, the opportunity costs and other costs
associated with wild dogs (for example, not
grazing sheep on otherwise suitable land).
However, most economic assessments have
been limited to calculations of stock losses
because these are the easiest and most com-
prehensible measures for landholders to use.
Studies in Western Australia, Victoria, New
South Wales and Queensland have shown
that predation of sheep and cattle can
threaten the economic viability of properties
in some areas. Sheep are the most commonly
attacked livestock, followed by cattle and
goats. There is evidence of seasonal peaks in
predation on livestock, possibly related to the
seasonal breeding activity of wild dogs, as
well as the timing of lambing and calving.
Although many wild dogs will attack or
harass sheep, some individual wild dogs
cause far more damage than others, some-
times maiming without killing outright. The
presence of wild dogs can adversely affect
the distribution and behaviour of sheep,
even when dogs do not actively harass them.
Wild dogs sometimes chase sheep without
following through with an attack. This may
lead to stress-associated behaviour such as
mismothering of lambs and loss of produc-
tion. Even when wild dogs kill sheep, they
often leave carcasses uneaten. Individual
wild dogs that kill sheep often eat natural
prey such as kangaroos, indicating that
killing of livestock is independent of the pres-
ence of natural prey.
Wild dogs have been in Australia long
enough to become a functional part of the
mammalian predator–prey relationships
and fulfil an important role in the function-
ing of natural ecosystems. Dingoes are
implicated in the extinction of Tasmanian
devils and thylacines from mainland
Australia. Dingoes are regarded as a native
species and are subject to legislative protec-
tion in some States and Territories.
Wild dogs are implicated in the spread of
hydatids which is a risk to human health
and the cause of losses of production associ-
ated with hydatidosis in cattle and sheep.
Wild dogs also provide a reservoir for heart-
worm infection and diseases such as par-
vovirus. Dog rabies is presently exotic to
Australia, but of all Australian wildlife, wild
dogs pose the greatest risk of maintaining
and spreading dog rabies if it was intro-
duced.
The dingo, often considered a native
Australian mammal, has an intrinsic and
aesthetic value and there is a public expec-
tation that it will be conserved. Other wild
dogs, as top order predators, may have an
important, but as yet unclear, influence on
the biodiversity of animal communities.
They might also have an inverse density
relationship with foxes and therefore be
important in limiting the impact of foxes
and cats on populations of small and medi-
um-sized mammal prey.
In areas where dingoes are a major tourist
attraction, they occasionally show aggres-
sive behaviour towards people, particularly
if they are often fed to encourage closer
viewing.
3.1 Economic impact
The threat of predation of livestock by wild
dogs has largely determined the distribution of
sheep and cattle in Australia (Figure 2)
(Newsome and Coman 1989). Rapid expan-
sion of the sheep industry after the successful
early 1800s ventures of the MacArthurs and
Marsden into merino breeding brought the
problem of predation by wild dogs to the
attention of early legislators (Section 5.1.3).
Sheep were under the constant supervision of
shepherds (Gould 1863; Rolls 1984) who had
responsibility for preventing sheep straying
and preventing predation by wild dogs. The
amount of fencing for the enclosure of live-
stock increased after the Nicholson Land Act
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 43
3. Economic and environmental impacts and values

Victoria 1860 and the Robertson Free Selection
Act NSW 1861, and the shortage of labour that
accompanied the 1860s goldrushes.
Consequently, the use of shepherds became less
common although the threat of wild dog preda-
tion ensured that considerable investment of
labour continued to be placed on wild dog
control. Predation has continued until the pre-
sent although there have been few attempts to
quantify losses at more than the property scale.
A Western Australian example of losses caused
by dingoes over an 18-day period is given in
(Thomson 1984a) (Table 2). These loss figures
are considered conservative as some events
could have been missed and sheep were being
mustered from the paddocks so not all were
available to dingoes for the full period.
Extrapolation of the data in Table 2 suggests an
annual loss of 33% in area A and 16% in Area
B. Had dingo activity continued, direct losses
of this magnitude, along with those due to
harassment, would have seriously threatened
the viability of the enterprise (Thomson
1984a).
Predation of livestock by wild dogs continues
to threaten the livelihood of some livestock
producers in tableland environments of east-
ern New South Wales, the Australian Capital
Territory and Victoria. In parts of the eastern
tablelands of New South Wales, wild dogs are
regarded as the major limitation to sheep pro-
duction (Fennessy 1966; New England Rural
Development Association (NERDA) undated
c.1966; Hone et al. 1981; Schaefer 1981;
Fleming and Robinson 1986; Fleming and Korn
1989). Holdings where wild dogs are a prob-
lem are mostly situated along the Northern and
Southern Tablelands of New South Wales
(Fleming and Korn 1989). The study by
NERDA (c. 1966) also estimated the opportuni-
ty cost of sheep not being run in areas that
were suitable but for the presence of wild
dogs. The timing of the survey corresponded
with a regional increase in pasture improve-
ment with superphosphate. It was believed
that pasture improvement combined with
dingo control could increase sheep numbers
by 93%.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
44
Even when livestock are not killed outright by wild dogs, economic losses may arise due to veterinary costs, decline in
livestock condition and downgraded sale prices (Source: L. Corbett).

‘There were seasonal
peaks in predation, possibly
related to the seasonal breeding
of wild dogs and control activity,
as well as the timing of lambing
and calving.’
The surveys of dingo damage (Table 3) con-
ducted by NERDA (c. 1966) and Schaefer
(1981) were inherently biased because their
samples were obtained from graziers attend-
ing meetings to discuss the issue of wild dog
predation. Fleming and Korn (1989) report a
monthly survey of authorised wild dog con-
trol officers (of Rural Lands Protection
Boards) from eastern New South Wales over
the four years from 1982 to 1985 (Table 3).
During this period, 25 644 livestock were
attacked by wild dogs. Sheep were the most
commonly attacked animal, followed by cat-
tle and goats. Regional differences were
apparent in the livestock species attacked
and these reflected the ratio of sheep to cat-
tle grazed in each region. Not surprisingly
therefore, the major losses occurred in areas
where sheep were present. Fleming and
Korn (1989) found seasonal peaks in preda-
tion, possibly related to the seasonal breed-
ing of wild dogs and control activity, as well
as the timing of lambing and calving.
In 1984 and 1985, another survey of 111 ran-
domly selected livestock producers with
land close to or within terrain inhabited by
wild dogs was conducted in north-eastern
New South Wales (Table 3; Fleming 1987).
Thirty-six per cent of producers reported that
wild dogs had attacked their livestock during
the survey and 1194 sheep and 127 cattle
were killed in those attacks. The mean losses
during the survey were 7.17 sheep per prop-
erty per year and 0.76 cattle per property per
year. The mean value of losses suffered by
those participants that had livestock preyed
on by wild dogs was $1900 (Fleming 1987).
The mean value was largely dependent on
the values of livestock that prevailed during
the survey. The cost to the sheep industry of
predation by wild dogs in eastern New South
Wales for 1988 was estimated at around $4
million (Saunders and Fleming 1988). Of the
surveys undertaken in north-eastern New
South Wales, only one survey (Fleming 1987)
was an unbiased sample from landholders
within or adjacent to terrain inhabited by
wild dogs.
In 1985, Backholer (1986) mailed a question-
naire to 809 properties in 23 shires of
Victoria that had a history of livestock preda-
tion by wild dogs. The 508 respondents
reported mean losses per property of
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 45
Radio-collared dingoes involved
Potential sheep available
Harassments, no injuries
Minor injuries
Kills/mortal injuries
Other verified deaths
Total identifiable losses
Area A Area B
Table 2: Sheep losses caused by dingoes over an 18-day period, detected during radio-tracking in two areas on Mardie
Station, Western Australia where dingoes were being controlled (after Thomson 1984a).
3
800 4200
53
1
13
33
07
17*
26
3
6
*Total includes four sheep killed on a neighbouring property by one of the radio-tagged dingoes.

between $700 and $7400 per annum, 0.1 to
24.9% of the total value of the enterprises.
The total loss was $835 000. As well as this,
opportunity costs (including time, moving
stock, repairing fences) totalled $662 500
and government agencies spent $1 444 500.
Therefore the total annual loss was around
$3 million. During the preceding eight years,
the annual average of the total losses that
were reported in the surveyed area was 2400
sheep which would be equivalent to an aver-
age annual loss of $1650 per property
(Backholer 1986).
The most recent survey of livestock losses
inflicted by wild dogs was in the Northern
Territory in 1995. The results of a question-
naire of approximately 67% of pastoralists
led to a rough estimate that annual calf losses
attributable to predation by wild dogs were
between 1.6% and 7.1% (Eldridge and Bryan
1995). The estimated annual value of all cat-
tle killed by wild dogs in the Northern
Territory (assuming an average value of $540
per head and 100% calving — such calving
rates are optimistic) was $13.5 million with
control costs of $300 000. This represents
average losses of $89 000 per property and
costs of $2000 per property. Despite the
extreme losses and comparatively small
investment in wild dog control, 96% of
respondents rated wild dog control as being
worthwhile.
One of the difficulties in providing clear data
on the impact of wild dogs on livestock pro-
duction is that most wild dog control pro-
grams manage to achieve, at least to some
extent, their aim of reducing predation on
livestock. Thus, figures on losses or damage
can be misleading, rarely reflecting the
potential impact that could arise in the
absence of wild dog control. The economic
impact of wild dog predation of livestock
cannot simply be measured in terms of live-
stock killed by wild dogs. Losses other than
direct maimings and killings of livestock
caused by wild dogs are especially difficult
to quantify. The costs of control activities,
losses of genetic material, capitalisation of
the risk of wild dog predation into land val-
ues (Schaefer 1981) and opportunity costs
(such as the allocation of labour and capital
to predation mitigation and planning instead
of other on-farm activities) need to be
accounted for in economic assessments.
Other opportunity costs are the imposition
of sub-optimal enterprise mixes for a particu-
lar agro-environment and sub-optimal pas-
ture management caused by the presence of
Bureau of Rural Sciences
46
Table 3: Predation of livestock by wild dogs in north-eastern New South Wales. Mean losses were calculated as the total
number of sheep killed by wild dogs divided by the total number of sheep run by the survey participants and expressed
as a percentage (from Fleming 1996b).
Year(s)Sheep killed
(Number/property/year)
Mean losses
of sheep (%)
Source
1961–62
1980–81
1982–85
1984–85
19.5a
19.4
N/A
14.5
1.33
0.9
0.7b
0.8
NERDA (undated c. 1966)
Schaefer (1981)
Fleming and Korn (1989)
Fleming (1987 and unpublished data
1985)
aTo equate the data with previous biased surveys (NERDA undated, c. 1966; Schaefer 1981), only the
losses of Wild Dog Control Association members in Fleming (1987) are presented in this column.
bLosses reported to local Rural Lands Protection Boards multiplied by three to account for two-thirds
under-reporting recorded in Fleming and Korn (1989).

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 47
(a) Calves are most vulnerable to wild dog attack when they are newborn and left while the cow feeds; (b) ‘nursery groups’ of
calves protected by older cows are common in areas where cattle are familiar with wild dog attacks
(Source: L. Allen, Department of Natural Resources, Queensland).
a
b

wild dogs. Although the mix of sheep and
cattle may be partially offset by capitalisation
of the costs of wild dogs into the purchase
price of land, enterprise mixes that are
below the optimum are likely to negatively
affect the cash flows and long-term prof-
itability of grazing enterprises in wild dog
inhabited areas.
‘Figures on losses or
damage can be misleading,
rarely reflecting the potential
impact that could arise in the
absence of wild dog control.’
Despite potential shortcomings, surveys of
the type outlined above substantiate the gen-
erally accepted view that the major losses
caused by wild dogs occur amongst sheep
flocks. An attempt to specifically document
and quantify the types of losses caused to
sheep flocks was made on Mardie Station in
the Pilbara region of Western Australia
(Thomson 1984a). In this study, 26 radio-col-
lared dingoes in sheep paddocks were
observed from the air. Interactions with
sheep were followed up by investigations on
the ground. Additional information was
obtained when sheep were mustered and
inspected at shearing time. The major find-
ings were:
• Some dingoes caused far more damage
than others did, although most attacked
sheep, sometimes maiming without killing
outright.
• The presence of a dingo could adversely
affect the distribution and behaviour of
the sheep, even if the dingo did not active-
ly harass them.
• Dingoes sometimes chased sheep with-
out following through with an attack.
This could still lead to harm such as mis-
mothering of lambs.
• When dingoes killed sheep they often left
carcasses uneaten.
• Individual dingoes that frequently killed
sheep often ate natural prey such as kan-
garoos (Macropus spp.).
Dingoes easily outpaced sheep, although it
was clear that many of the witnessed chases
were not motivated by hunger; chases were
sometimes seen after wild dogs had been
observed feeding. At times wild dogs simply
broke off chases, or moved on to chase other
sheep in the mob, then left with no actual
physical contact with the sheep. Sheep were
sometimes chased through fences (this has
also been reported in north-eastern New
South Wales), on occasions into waterless
areas. At times, clear changes in the distribu-
tion of sheep within large (up to 150 square
kilometres) paddocks were observed; sheep
abandoned favoured grazing areas when
dingoes were present. When ewes and
lambs were chased, ewes ran off wildly,
leaving lambs to keep up as best they could
and potentially causing their death through
mismothering. All these events could cause
production losses, although they would not
necessarily be reflected in a ‘carcass count’.
The survival of most bitten sheep was poor.
Far fewer bitten sheep were tallied at shearing
than would have been expected based on
observations in the paddocks. Nevertheless,
rams seemed to survive severe scrotal injuries,
with some being fully castrated by wild dogs
attacking from behind (Figure 11).
In some areas, producers have elected to run
cattle instead of sheep because of the effects of
wild dog predation. For example, Backholer’s
(1986) survey showed that, to minimise wild
dog predation, 12% of eastern Victorian
respondents reduced their sheep numbers or
did not run sheep. Although wild dogs can
cause losses to cattle herds, as discussed next,
the impacts are usually less severe and more
easily overcome. Nevertheless, some grazing
lands are more suited to running sheep than
cattle, and the move to other enterprises such
as cattle production can be viewed as an
opportunity cost of wild dog predation.
Damage by wild dogs is likely whenever their
ranges overlap those of sheep. Damage occurs
largely independent of age and condition of
sheep, age and density of the dogs, seasonal
conditions and availability of alternative food
for dogs. However, most of these factors influ-
ence wild dog predation on cattle (Rankine
and Donaldson 1968; Corbett 1995a; Allen and
Gonzalez 1998). In contrast to the situation
Bureau of Rural Sciences
48

with sheep, the impact of wild dogs on cattle
production is more variable. Generally, attacks
on young calves are the major cause of cattle
losses to wild dogs (Corbett 1995a; Fleming
and Korn 1989). However, the cost of wild
dog predation to the beef industry in Australia
has not been estimated. The profitability of
northern Queensland cattle enterprises is sub-
stantially affected by branding percentage
(Sullivan et al. 1992). Predation of calves by
wild dogs is the main cause of neonatal losses
in northern Australian cattle (Rankine and
Donaldson 1968) and hence has major bearing
on branding precentage. Branding percent-
ages also vary considerably with seasonal con-
ditions, pasture improvement and level of ani-
mal husbandry. Predation is greater when
alternative food is scarce (Thomson 1992c;
Corbett 1995a; Allen and Gonzalez 1998).
Improved weaner management and nutrition
have been shown to potentially increase
branding percentages from 40% in 1968–69 to
1970–71 (Anderson and McLennan 1986) to
80% twenty years later (Fordyce and Entwistle
1992).
‘Predation may be higher
when control operations cause
invading young wild dogs to
come into contact with
cattle herds.’
Estimates of predation losses of calves and
weaners in normal conditions in rangeland
grazing areas are in the range of 0–29.4% per
year (Rankine and Donaldson 1968) and
studies of reproductive failure in cattle herds
in Queensland have suggested up to 30%
loss of calves caused by predation by wild
dogs (Allen and Gonzalez 1998). Such losses
would negate the potential gains due to
improved livestock and pasture management
in northern Australia.
There is evidence that the age and social
organisation of a wild dog population can
affect the extent of predation on calves.
Calves are most vulnerable when newborn,
though the protective behaviour of the cow
can be sufficient to deter wild dog attacks
(Thomson 1992c, and unpublished observa-
tions). Experienced wild dogs, operating as a
hunting unit, are more likely to be successful
at killing calves. On the other hand, there is
evidence from north Queensland (Allen and
Gonzalez 1998), that risks of predation may
be higher when control operations cause a
preponderance of invading young wild dogs
to come into contact with cattle herds.
Seasonal effects (Corbett 1995a) and the
scale of control may modify the damage
response; a larger baited area would reduce
the rate of repopulation and the number of
transient dogs, as Thomson (1984b) found in
Western Australia.
It is possible that increased predation could
be caused by the greater mobility of immi-
grant dingoes, increasing the probability of
an encounter with a newborn calf. This
might be exacerbated by the lone status and
relative inexperience of immigrant wild
dogs, resulting in their poor success at hunt-
ing larger and faster native prey such as kan-
garoos.
Appropriate strategies to manage the impacts
of wild dogs differ markedly depending on
the type of livestock and the conditions pre-
vailing in an area (Chapters 5, 6 and 7).
3.2 Environmental impact
Predation by wild dogs may have an impact
on the survival of remnant populations of
endangered fauna. For example, predation by
the dingo has been implicated in the extinc-
tion of the Tasmanian native-hen (Gallinula
mortierii) from mainland Australia (Baird
1991). Endangered populations of marsupials
may require management of their predators to
become re-established or to survive (Johnson
et al. 1989). Predation by wild dogs is less like-
ly to threaten populations of more abundant
marsupials (Robertshaw and Harden 1989).
The other environmental impacts of wild dogs
relate to their management, rather than to the
presence of the animals themselves. First,
control measures may have a direct impact on
non-target species (Section 6.6.2). Second,
reducing wild dog density may result in an
increase in other predators with overlapping
diets. (This process of substitution of preda-
tors is called ‘mesopredator release’ (Soulé et
al. 1988)). There is a commonly held opinion
(Denny 1992; Smith et al. 1992) that removing
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 49

wild dogs from a system where foxes (Vulpes
vulpes) also occur will result in an increase in
fox numbers with consequent increased pre-
dation on critical body weight range (CWR)
mammals (35–5500 grams) (Burbidge and
McKenzie 1989). However, neither an
increase in fox numbers resulting from a
reduction in wild dog numbers nor a resulting
increase in predation of CWR mammals have
been demonstrated. Schlinder (1974) has also
argued that, by the same mechanism, feral
pigs could replace dingoes in some situations.
‘Predation by wild dogs
may have an impact on the
survival of remnant populations
of endangered fauna.’
Predation on environmentally damaging feral
ungulates has been suggested as a positive
impact of dingoes and other wild dogs. For
example, Parkes et al. (1996) suggested that
the limited distribution of feral goats in north-
ern Australia was attributable to dingo preda-
tion. Twenty sterilised dingoes were released
on Townshend Island, off Queensland, in an
attempt to reduce the population of 2000–3000
feral goats. Within one-and-a-half years 99% of
the goats had been removed and feral goats
were eradicated from the island after three-
and-a-half years (L. Allen, Queensland
Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm.
1998). Given that the dingoes survived for two
years on very few goats, this raises the interest-
ing question of the impact of dingoes on alter-
native prey (Section 3.6.5) that must have been
killed during the latter part of the exercise.
Caution should be exercised in translating
these results to mainland ecosystems. Pavlov
(1991) provided circumstantial evidence that,
while dingoes undoubtedly kill feral pigs, they
do not significantly affect feral pig abundance.
3.3 Resource and conservation
value
Although feral dogs and hybrids are seldom
regarded as a wildlife resource, dingoes have
potential value from five resource perspec-
tives: (1) harvest for food or skins; (2) conser-
vation of native species and natural communi-
ties (Section 4.4); (3) in Aboriginal mythology;
(4) tourism; and (5) as a specialised dog breed.
1. Unlike in some Asian countries where din-
goes are eaten (Corbett 1995a), there is no
current harvest of dingoes for food in
Australia. There is evidence that Aboriginal
people ate dingoes and other wild dogs
(Manwell and Baker 1984). Dingoes could
be harvested for their pelts, but these are
generally of low value. It is illegal under
the Commonwealth Wildlife Protection
(Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act
1982 and subsequent amendments, and
associated Amendment Acts of 1986,
1991 and 1995, to export native wildlife
products, including pelts, without appro-
priate licenses. Trade in skins, except for
the recovery of bounties, is not permitted
in those States and Territories where the
dingo is afforded some conservation sta-
tus.
2. The dingo has been in Australia long
enough to have colonised most suitable
habitats and, in many instances, is still a
functional part of predator–prey relation-
ships. The implication from this is that the
dingo fulfils an important role in the func-
tioning of ecosystems. Legislation in some
States acknowledges the ecological signifi-
cance of dingoes and provides protection
in some situations (Section 5.2). Whether
dingoes have conservation value because
they have a functional role in the conser-
vation of natural ecosystems is unclear
(Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6). Regulation of
macropod and emu (Dromaius novaehol-
landiae) populations by wild dogs has
been inferred, but not proven, in a num-
ber of studies (Caughley et al. 1980;
Shepherd 1981; Robertshaw and Harden
1986; Thomson 1992c; Fleming 1996b;
Pople et al. 2000). Prey regulation by wild
dogs has been inferred for rabbit popula-
tions after droughts have reduced rabbit
numbers in arid areas (Corbett 1995a).
Conversely, in an experiment in the
wet–dry tropics, Corbett (1995c) demon-
strated that dingoes do not regulate feral
pig populations (Section 3.6.5).
In contrast, there is evidence that dingo
numbers in many areas of central and
northern Australia have increased since
Bureau of Rural Sciences
50

European colonisation. Predation by
dingoes may threaten the survival of
some CWR mammals. Where this occurs,
dingoes may be considered a biological
liability rather than a biological resource.
Where feral dogs and hybrids have sup-
planted dingoes, these too may perform
a similar role in the function of the
ecosystem. Predators affect the distribu-
tion and abundance of their prey
(Huffacker 1970) and so the substitution
of one canid subspecies with a similar
subspecies is likely to maintain the
dynamics of the community in which
they occur.
3. The dingo is an important animal in
Aboriginal mythology. For some Aboriginal
peoples (for example, the Pitjantjatjara)
dingoes are associated with sacred sites
and are considered the physical embodi-
ment of a Dreamtime character or
Tjukurpa. The local disappearance of
native species significant to Aboriginal
people has caused them distress in the
past and similar distress may be caused if
dingoes become extinct.
4. Dingoes provide an indirect resource
value from tourism. They are present in
many zoos and private wildlife parks.
Fraser Island is an example where free-
living dingoes are a tourist attraction
providing income to island businesses.
Tourism by recreational hunters is anoth-
er source of value of dingoes (Allison
and Coombes 1969). The ‘howling-up’ of
a dingo may be regarded as a test of
hunting skills and the presentation of
scalps for bounties (Section 5.1.1) as a
small remuneration to help cover the
costs of the hunt (Allison and Coombes
1969).
5. The dingo is recognised as an official
breed of dog by the Australian National
Kennel Council and was adopted as
Australia’s national breed in November
1993. In New South Wales, this status has
been recently recognised in legislation
(Companion Animals Act 1998) which
allows people to keep dingoes under the
same restrictions as other breeds. Animals
kept by breed societies are traded as pets
or specimen animals. This is potentially
damaging for the conservation of pure
dingoes because many animals held by
breed societies are likely to be hybrids
and there are no valid checks in place to
detect them (Corbett 1995a; Corbett in
press; Section 2.9).
The presence of dingoes has an ‘unpriced’
value (Sinden and Worrell 1979) that is diffi-
cult to quantify and comprises the non-mon-
etary value that many people place on din-
goes. The dingo is an icon which many peo-
ple value knowing is present in the wild, that
is, its ‘existence value’.
3.4 Diseases and parasites
Endemic diseases and parasites
Hydatidosis (causal agent Echinococcus
granulosus) causes fatalities and morbidity
in humans. The prevalence of hydatidosis in
humans is often linked to sylvatic cycles in
wild dogs and wildlife (Coman 1972a;
Thompson et al. 1988). The prevalence in
humans is relatively low but is more com-
mon in south-eastern Australia (Jenkins and
Power 1996).
Hydatidosis associated with a sylvatic cycle
within wild canids and macropods (Durie and
Riek 1952; Coman 1972b) leads to the condem-
nation of offal from up to 90% of slaughtered
cattle from endemic areas (D. Jenkins,
Australian Hydatids Control and Epidemiology
Program, unpublished data 1999). An abattoir
survey of sheep from the Southern Tablelands
of New South Wales from 1970–72 found
hydatidosis in up to 40% of carcasses (Hunt
1978). Bovine hydatidosis (causal agent
Echinococcus granulosus) prevalences of
2.2–55.7% have been reported in south-eastern
Queensland (Baldock et al. 1985) and of
0.5–7% in north-eastern Victoria (D. Jenkins,
Australian Hydatids Control and Epidemiology
Program, Australian Capital Territory, pers.
comm. 1998). The latter prevalences were in
spite of an extensive hydatid control program
aimed at domestic and farm dogs. Hydatidosis
is an occupational risk for wild dog trappers
and researchers.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 51

Red foxes have also been identified as defini-
tive hosts and macropods as intermediate
hosts for hydatid transmission in south-east-
ern Australia (Obendorf et al. 1989; Reichel et
al. 1994). Where feral dogs, dingoes and free-
roaming domestic dogs co-occur with foxes
(for example, in coastal south-eastern
Australia, Meek 1998) the control of human
hydatidosis becomes more difficult.
‘The prevalence of hydatidosis in
humans is often linked to sylvatic
cycles in wild dogs and wildlife.’
Wild dogs also transmit the viruses that
cause canine distemper (Paramyxovirus),
canine hepatitis (Adenovirus) and parvovirus
disease (causal agent Parvovirus). Although
these diseases adversely affect domestic
dogs, their transmission by wild dogs is
unlikely to pose a significant threat because
these diseases can be controlled.
The presence of heartworm (Dirofilaria
immitis) in dog populations is linked to the
presence of mosquitoes in endemic areas
(Russell 1990). Heartworm infections are
uncommon in the tablelands of south-eastern
Australia, with most cases of infection in
domestic dogs being in animals that have
been moved by their owners to and from
endemic areas (Carlisle and Atwell 1984).
Heartworm infection has not been recorded in
foxes from the Northern, Central and Southern
Tablelands of New South Wales (P. Fleming
and B. Kay, NSW Agriculture, and D. Jenkins,
Australian Hydatids Control and Epidemiology
Program, Australian Capital Territory, unpub-
lished data 1999). It is therefore unlikely that
wild dogs and dingoes from tablelands of
south-eastern Australia will experience heart-
worm infection and that, more commonly,
infection will be in coastal areas and northern
Australia. In urban Melbourne, where heart-
worm infection has been recorded in foxes, a
sylvatic cycle of canine heartworm has been
postulated (Marks and Bloomfield 1998). This
process may also apply in endemic areas
where foxes and wild dogs co-occur.
Seddon and Albiston (1967) suggest that wild
dogs may act as hosts for the parasite that
causes sheep measles (Taenia ovis) and the
consequent condemnation of sheep carcasses.
However, Coman (1972a) failed to find evi-
dence of T. ovis infection in a sample of 204
dingoes and other wild dogs in north-eastern
Victoria and linked this absence to the infre-
quent occurence of sheep and cattle in the diet
of dogs in his sample.
Parasites have also been instrumental in the
identification of dingo origins. The occur-
rence of the biting lice (Heterodoxus
spiniger) on dingoes and macropods in
Australia and on Asian dingoes implies that
dingoes were transported to and from Asia
(Corbett 1995a) (Section 1.2).
Exotic diseases and parasites
Canids are regarded as the most important
source of rabies (Rhabdoviridae) in humans
(Garner 1992), with dogs causing an estimat-
ed 75 000 cases annually throughout the
world (Fenner et al. 1987). As dog rabies is
presently exotic to Australia (there has been
one reported outbreak since European settle-
ment in Tasmania in 1867; O’Brien 1992), the
potential role of wild dogs can only be specu-
lated. Newsome and Catling (1992) suggest
that of all Australian wildlife, wild dogs and
foxes pose the greatest risk of maintaining
and spreading dog rabies after introduction,
and Thomson and Marsack (1992) propose
aerial baiting of buffer zones as the primary
weapon against the spread of rabies among
dingoes in rangelands. Forman (1993) indicat-
ed that the establishment of a sylvatic dog
rabies cycle in Australia was remote but possi-
ble. The dog strain of rabies remains the main
focus for quarantine barrier prevention of this
disease in Australia.
If dog rabies were to become endemic in
Australia, interaction between free-roaming
dogs and feral dogs and dingoes would be the
most likely avenue for dog rabies transmission
to humans. Free-roaming dogs have been
recorded making linear movements of up to
eight kilometres into bushland where wild
dogs and foxes co-occur (Meek 1998). These
animals entered bushland with high macrop-
od density to hunt and then returned to their
owners. The mean duration of hunting forays
was 23 hours, and it is probable that interac-
tions between wild and free-roaming dogs
occurred on these trips. Newsome and Catling
(1992) consider that, at the high densities of
Bureau of Rural Sciences
52

wild dogs and dingoes found in northern
Australia and south-eastern Australia, dog
rabies would persist were it introduced.
Interactions of unrestrained and unvaccinated
domestic dogs with wild dogs would con-
tribute to human infection if rabies were to
become established in wild dogs. Rabies is not
solely a problem of human health but also
affects livestock production; for example, bat
rabies from vampire bats (Desmodus rotun-
dus) is a serious cause of mortality in cattle in
Central and South America (Garner 1992).
Should a sylvatic cycle of dog rabies become
established in wild dogs in Australia, it might
affect sheep and cattle production and make
the treatment of animals injured by wild dogs
more risky.
‘Wild dogs and foxes pose
the greatest risk of maintaining
and spreading dog rabies after
introduction.’
A number of other diseases are important
pathogens of dogs in other parts of the world
and their introduction to Australia would
adversely affect domestic dogs, particularly
in breeding kennels, in much the same way
as canine distemper does. Wild dogs at high
densities may also be affected and their pop-
ulations limited by infection levels. Among
these diseases are: canine brucellosis (infec-
tive agent Brucella canis), which causes
abortion and infertility; Chagas’ disease
(Trypanosoma cruzi), which may cause
myocardial and central nervous system
degeneration; and tropical canine pancy-
topaenia (Ehrlichia canis), an often fatal
parasite of the blood associated with the
common brown dog tick (Rhipicephalus
sanguineas) (Geering and Forman 1987).
Canine brucellosis and Chagas’ disease are
both zoonoses when endemic but human
infections are few. Geering and Forman
(1987) suspect that tropical canine pancy-
topaenia may be present in northern
Australian wild dogs although no positive
diagnoses have been made.
Dogs are also susceptible to infection by
three other exotic disease organisms: the
viruses causing Aujeszky’s disease
(Herpesviridae, Alphaherpesvirinae) and
transmissible gastroenteritis (Coronaviridae),
and screw-worm fly (Chrysomya bezziana)
(Saunders et al. 1999). Wild dogs might
spread transmissible gastroenteritis, a dis-
ease affecting young pigs, but dogs are
unlikely to be important in spreading the
other two diseases if they were to enter
Australia.
3.5 Interactions between wild
dogs, marsupial carnivores
and introduced predators
The thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), a
marsupial carnivore about the size of the
dingo, was once distributed throughout
Australia, but ‘suddenly’ disappeared from
the mainland about 3000 years ago (Archer
1974; Dixon 1989; Rounsevell and Mooney
1995). The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus
harrisii), a marsupial carnivore about half
the size of a dingo, was also widespread
throughout Australia about 4000 years ago,
but its population declined and it became
extinct on the mainland about 450 years ago
(Jones 1995). Their demise can be attributed
to competition with dingoes according to the
‘superior adaptability’ hypothesis (Corbett
1995a). This hypothesis hinges on the supe-
rior social organisation of dingoes during
critical periods when food supplies were
scarce, widely dispersed or clumped, which
usually occurs during drought or after exten-
sive wildfire. Only dingoes form large inte-
grated packs and cooperate to catch large
prey and to defend carcasses, water and
other crucial resources. On the other hand,
thylacines hunted alone or in pairs and devils
were essentially solitary so that neither could
successfully compete against the weight of
dingo numbers during those critical periods.
This contention is supported by early records
of thylacines as having a stiff gait; they proba-
bly could not run after their prey (mainly
macropods) as fast as dingoes could. They
apparently located prey by scent and tired it
by dogged pursuit, usually alone, as there are
no records or anecdotes of thylacines hunting
cooperatively. This apparent lack of pack
hunting is supported by bushmen’s observa-
tions that the thylacine was normally mute
except for a coughing bark (Rounsevell and
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 53

Mooney 1995). Social hunters, such as din-
goes, have a large vocal repertoire for com-
municating over distances (Corbett 1995a).
Similarly, observations of devils in Tasmania,
where they are still common, confirm that
they hunt alone, and that although they can
catch a variety of live prey, they subsist main-
ly on carrion such as macropods and sheep
(Pemberton and Renouf 1993). It seems that
their aggregations around carcasses are not
cohesive social units, so, as for thylacines, it is
quite likely that devils could not successfully
compete with dingoes when food was scarce
during drought and after fires.
‘Dingoes form large
integrated packs and cooperate
to catch large prey and to defend
carcasses, water and other
crucial resources.’
Wild dogs may now present foxes and feral
cats with a similar kind of competition. In
central Australia, the most common prey
species of wild dogs, foxes and feral cats are
rabbits and small rodents. During a drought
between 1969 and 1972 these prey became
scarce and wild dogs changed their diet to
red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and cattle
carcasses (Corbett and Newsome 1987). Wild
dogs were more successful at catching kan-
garoos by hunting cooperatively than alone
(Section 2.3.1), and stable packs of wild dogs
defended carcasses and waters more success-
fully than less cohesive groups (Corbett
1995a). During the first year of this drought,
cats and foxes were also seen scavenging cat-
tle and kangaroo carcasses, but sightings of
them ceased and their tracks disappeared
about midway through the drought. They
most likely starved because many emaciated
cats suddenly appeared around homesteads
and many were easily killed by park rangers
(Hooper et al. 1973). Wild dogs undoubtedly
contributed significantly to the demise of cats
and foxes by their increased monopoly of
carcasses as the drought persisted. Foxes
were observed avoiding wild dogs at shared
waterholes and an increase of cat in the wild
dogs’ diet was recorded. In any event, there
were no signs of cats or foxes until the
drought broke and after the rabbit and rodent
populations had resurged (Corbett 1995a).
3.6 Predator–prey relationships
Dingoes and other wild dogs have changed
in abundance and status since European set-
tlement led to modified ecosystems (Section
2.8.4), and so has the nature of their sociality
and predation.
3.6.1 Dingo behaviour and
predation on cattle
There are potential problems if peak calving
coincides with the dingo mating season. For
example, in the Barkly Tableland of the
Northern Territory, most dingoes operate inde-
pendently but during the dingo mating season
(about four months peaking in March–April),
dingoes form temporary breeding groups
which often comprise one oestrous female and
several males (Corbett 1995a). The dingo mat-
ing season coincides with the peak in calving
and this coincidence contributes to the deaths
of many calves (Corbett 1995a). Calves and
dingoes are often together at water, which is
where many attacks occur. In many cases,
attacks on calves are probably more of a dis-
placement activity than a hunger drive, per-
haps because dingoes become frustrated from
competing over oestrous (in heat) females and
fighting with rival males. Within dingo groups,
there are many aggressive interactions
between males but actual fighting is uncom-
mon because of complex behaviours associat-
ed with dingo dominance hierarchies.
Aggressive behaviour can be appeased or
diverted by submissive behaviour to avert seri-
ous wounding and death (Corbett 1988b).
However, a calf cannot appease or divert the
aggression as a submissive dingo would, so the
dingo, irrespective of social rank, continues to
attack, often joined by other dingoes, until the
calf becomes wounded or dies. Calves killed
this way are rarely eaten. Even if the calf sur-
vives well enough to be sent to market, the
meat is often classified as second class because
of scars from dog bites. Such loss to the cattle
industry is probably substantial but it is difficult
to quantify (Section 3.1). As wild dogs seldom
eat calves, examining stomachs or faeces of
wild dogs would be misleading.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
54

3.6.2 Extinctions of native fauna in
central Australia
In central Australia, before the 1930s, 14
species of bandicoots (Peramelidae), macrop-
ods and rat-kangaroos (Potoroidae) were com-
mon in the areas where cattle now graze, but
only five species survive today, and of these,
two are rare and endangered (Newsome and
Corbett 1977; Morton 1990).
It is probable that a combination of factors
operated to cause those extinctions and
declines including:
• habitat fragmentation and modification
from heavy grazing by rabbits and live-
stock
• increased competition from rabbits and
livestock
• altered fire regimes
• predation by feral cats, foxes and dingoes.
With respect to predation, Corbett (1995a)
indicates that cat and fox numbers were low
at the time and that dingoes played a major
role in the demise of those medium-sized
mammals that mostly sheltered on the sur-
face amongst grass and shrubs.
The expansion of grazing enterprises from the
1930s was due to the establishment of supple-
mentary water from artesian bores (Bauer
1983), which allowed cattle to graze further
from natural water sources and modify and
fragment habitats. This expansion coincided
with the most severe droughts (Foley 1957)
on record and widespread severe grassfires
(Friedel et al. 1990) (Figure 8).
During drought the native fauna declined. In
contrast, dingo populations remained high
due to cattle carrion and water provided for
stock. Dingo predation on macropod and
bandicoots would have become increasingly
severe as dingo populations grew and as the
protective shelters were removed by cattle
and rabbits. It is probably no coincidence
that the native mammals became extinct or
rare.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 55
Cattle numbers ('000s)
Rain (mm)
Year
0 0
200
400
600
800
1000
500
400
300
200
100
600
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Rain
Cattle
Years of extensive wildfires
Years of
drought
Figure 8: Cattle numbers and rainfall in central Australia from 1874 to 1985. The increase in cattle numbers from the
1930s corresponded with the availability of sub-artesian bore water. Droughts are unpredictable and common in arid
areas, yet cattle numbers quadrupled between the worst droughts (1924–1930 and 1958–1965). Wildfires became more
frequent in the 20th century. The combination of extensive fierce fires and cattle grazing exposed many medium-size
mammals to predation by wild dogs. This predation was probably a cause of some native species’ extinctions (after
Corbett 1995a).

3.6.3 Factors affecting wild
dog–prey interactions with
native prey
In the tropical coastal wetlands of the
Northern Territory, most dingoes live in
packs of three to eight and defend more or
less fixed territories. They mostly eat dusky
rats (Rattus colletti), magpie geese
(Anseranas semipalmata) and agile walla-
bies (Macropus agilis). When these prey are
unavailable dingoes can switch to a range of
at least 33 species of substitute prey although
they usually concentrate on only one or two
species at a time (Corbett 1989; 1995a).
Wallabies are available all year round where-
as the supply of rats and geese varies with
wet and dry seasons. Most geese are eaten as
fledglings in the dry season. Rats irrupt into
huge plagues on the floodplains about every
three or four years, but they are only avail-
able to dingoes during the dry months.
Floodplain fauna (rats and geese) are mostly
eaten during the dry months and more forest
fauna (wallabies (Macropus spp.) and pos-
sums (Phalangeroidea)) are eaten during the
wet months (Figure 9).
Climatic conditions influence both when and
where dingoes hunt particular prey species.
This alternation of predation between habi-
tats, illustrated in Figure 9, is a well-defined,
predictable cycle in which dingoes do not
appear to influence the abundance and
diversity of any particular prey.
In the temperate coastal mountains of south-
east Australia wild dog–prey interactions are
determined more by wildfire than by rainfall.
Most fires are low to moderate intensity so
that the environment remains fairly stable and
food supplies for wild dogs are usually high.
Fires of high intensity, although infrequent,
devastate entire forests and change the prey
available to wild dogs, but the total food sup-
ply usually remains high. It is therefore not
surprising that the predatory cycle is less
defined than in the tropical wetlands. Lower
densities of wild dogs living in smaller packs
(averaging three members) and in smaller ter-
ritories are also a consequence of this envi-
ronmental stability (Newsome et al. 1983a).
This predatory cycle still alternates between
consistently available prey and seasonal
prey. At Nadgee Nature Reserve in south-
eastern New South Wales, for example, the
main prey are medium-sized mammals (wal-
labies, rabbits, possums) and waterbirds
such as black swans (Cygnus atratus) and
coots (Fulica atra). Both prey types are
eaten seasonally and are supplemented by
large macropods (eastern grey kangaroo)
Bureau of Rural Sciences
56
% occurrence in diet
General model of dingo-prey interactions
% Forest fauna (wallaby + possum)
% Floodplain fauna (rats + geese)
80
70
60
50
40
30
10 20 30 40 50
w
w
w
w
d
dd
d
w, wet season
d, dry season
d
d
d
w
w
60
90
Seasonally predictible prey
(Magpie geese)
Eruptive prey
(Dusky rats)
Consistently available prey
(Agile wallabies)
DRY
SEASON
WET
SEASON
Figure 9: A model of predation by wild dogs in a pristine
coastal ecosystem in tropical Australia. Predation by wild
dogs alternates between habitats, switching from forest
during the wet season to floodplain in the dry after the
floodplains dry out. The main prey are dusky rats and
magpie geese in the dry and agile wallabies in the wet
(after Corbett 1995a).

(Macropus giganteus) and small mammals
(Newsome et al. 1983a). In this ecosystem
wild dog predation sometimes affects prey
diversity, abundance and population struc-
ture, probably because severe wildfires
change habitats and thus alter the composi-
tion of the prey base. This encourages wild
dogs to either concentrate on a vulnerable,
relatively uncommon species, or to prey on
an abundant species, thereby relieving the
pressure on another species and allowing its
population to recover. At Nadgee, wild dogs
usually concentrate on macropods immedi-
ately after severe fires and sometimes elimi-
nate local populations of eastern grey kanga-
roos (Newsome et al. 1983a).
‘The predatory cycle alternates
between consistently available
prey and seasonal prey.’
The effects of such intense predation is alle-
viated when waterbirds are in great abun-
dance, as sometimes occurs when severe
storms replenish the coastal lakes with water
and food for the birds. When there are no
substitute prey available after severe fires,
wild dog numbers decline soon after
macropods decline (Newsome et al. 1983a).
In the mountains, where waterbirds are less
available, there is no clear cycle. In Kosciusko
National Park, wild dogs mainly hunt wom-
bats (Vombatus ursinus), wallabies and rab-
bits, and these prey are supplemented by a
variety of other species (Newsome et al.
1983a). Similarly, in the mountains near
Armidale in north-east New South Wales, the
main prey of wild dogs are macropods, espe-
cially swamp wallabies (Wallabia bicolor),
red-necked wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus)
and eastern grey kangaroos (Robertshaw and
Harden 1985a; 1985b). Wild dogs concentrate
on juveniles (pouch young and young at foot)
and reduce macropod recruitment rates so
considerably that the populations of these
species may decline. In some areas, small iso-
lated populations of eastern grey kangaroos
and red-neck wallabies have been completely
eliminated (Robertshaw and Harden 1986).
This happened because enough substitute
prey was available to support the wild dog
population; otherwise the wild dogs would
have moved away or starved.
Another outcome of the wild dogs’ concentra-
tion on swamp wallabies was a disruption of
the usual seasonal pattern of wallaby births
(Robertshaw and Harden 1986). Many
females ejected their pouch young when pur-
sued by wild dogs, but as most of these off-
spring were soon replaced (96% of sexually
mature females carried a blastocyst), there
was a continuous output of young instead of
the usual spring–summer peak. Besides this
change in breeding pattern, the number of
ovulations per female increased as predation
pressure of wild dogs increased, and so did
male swamp wallabies’ testicle and epi-
didymis weights.
3.6.4 Factors affecting wild
dog–prey interactions on
pastoral lands
Two major environmental disturbance fac-
tors in much of Australia have been the intro-
duction of exotic animals, especially rabbits
and livestock, and pastoral industry infras-
tructure, such as artesian bores and dams. In
temperate zones, land clearing has also
changed the structure of the landscape. This
alteration in habitats and introduction of
exotic animals has made some native prey
species increase and others decrease. Wild
dogs have mainly benefited from extra sup-
plies of food and water, which have helped
them to survive drought and increase their
numbers, but these extra resources have also
changed the natural pattern of predation.
‘Dingo predation is greatest
on small and medium-sized
mammals during flush
periods and greatest on
large mammals in drought.’
The interplay between seasons (drought and
flush years), native prey and introduced prey
(pests and cattle) and predation by dingoes is
well illustrated by a study at Erldunda in central
Australia (Corbett and Newsome 1987). When
rains broke the longest drought on record
(1958–65), rodents irrupted over widespread
areas and dingoes concentrated on them for
about a year. Then rabbits predominated in the
dingo’s diet for the next three years. When
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 57

another drought reduced the rabbit popula-
tions, predation on red kangaroos increased,
even though they became uncommon. Then,
as this drought lengthened, cattle began to die
and carrion became more frequent in the diet.
This sequential emphasis upon vertebrate prey
of increasing body size as aridity increased can
be summarised as a general model (Figure10)
which indicates that dingo predation is greatest
on small and medium-sized mammals during
flush periods and greatest on large mammals in
drought. This seasonal variability provides a
basis to understand the impact of dingo preda-
tion on prey, critical periods when dingoes kill
cattle, and whether or not predation can regu-
late or limit prey populations.
3.6.5 Does predation by wild dogs
regulate prey populations?
Predation by wild dogs has often been
assumed to be a cause of fluctuation or lack
of fluctuation in some prey populations, as
indicated by the following examples:
• Wild dog predation has been assumed to
account for the contrast in density of red
kangaroos and emus on the two sides of
the Dog Fence between the borders of
Queensland, New South Wales and South
Australia. Outside the fence, where wild
dogs abound, kangaroos and emus are
rare; but the opposite applies inside the
fence (Caughley et al. 1980; Pople et al.
2000). There is evidence that, in this situa-
tion, the predation rate by dingoes on red
kangaroos and emus regulates their popu-
lations at low densities (Pople et al. 2000).
• Feral goat populations persist only in
areas where dingoes are absent or are
subjected to high levels of control
(Parkes et al. 1996).
• At Petroi, in the mountains of north-east-
ern New South Wales, the occurrence of
swamp wallabies in the diet of wild dogs
was proportionally higher than expected
from the number of observed wallabies.
When wild dog numbers increased, so too
did their consumption of wallabies which
was soon followed by a marked decline in
the wallaby population (Robertshaw and
Harden 1986).
• At Nadgee Nature Reserve, post-fire pre-
dation by wild dogs on macropods held
their numbers in check for 2–3 years,
probably because the fire opened up
habitats and made these prey more vul-
nerable (Newsome et al. 1983a).
• In arid central Australia, red kangaroos
became more vulnerable to predation
during drought, partly because they
were clumped around waterholes and
remaining feed. At one site on the plains,
kangaroo populations declined during a
drought when dingo predation became
progressively greater, and kangaroos
remained low after drought — at about
15% of their pre-drought numbers
(Corbett and Newsome 1987).
• In the Harts Ranges, near Alice Springs,
Northern Territory, red kangaroos
declined from being common to rare
after a 7.5-year drought, and populations
did not recover in the subsequent 10
years even though pasture was generally
better than average. There is evidence
that dingoes, whose numbers had
remained stable throughout the drought,
mediated competition between rabbits,
cattle and kangaroos to the detriment of
kangaroos (Corbett and Newsome 1987).
• In the Fortescue River region of north-
west Western Australia, euro (Macropus
robustus erubescens) populations were
fairly low in an area where dingo popu-
lations were allowed to remain high,
because they preyed selectively on par-
ticular age classes of euros. When din-
goes were greatly culled by a baiting
program, euro populations immediately
and dramatically increased (Thomson
1992c).
• In the Guy Fawkes River region of north-
ern New South Wales there is circumstan-
tial evidence that dingoes limited the
abundance of macropods (Fleming 1996b;
Fleming and Thompson unpublished data
1993). It is possible that annual removals
of wild dogs and foxes by aerial baiting
increased the abundance of macropods in
baited areas.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
58

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 59
Rabbits
Kangaroos
Cattle
Rodents
Flush years Drought years
% dingoes eating prey
50
0
100
Small
prey (e.g.
rabbits, rodents)
Large prey
(e.g. cattle) Economic calf loss
Flush Drought Flush
% dingoes eating prey
50
0
100
Beneficial calf loss
Curb increase in rabbits
(a)
(b)
Figure 10: Models of predation by wild dogs in disturbed ecosystems in arid Australia showing: (a) sequential predation
on prey of increasing size; and (b) dingo predation on small and large prey. Note, the time scale on the x-axis is longer in
graph (b) (after Corbett 1995a).

These examples provide evidence that dingo
predation can affect prey populations, espe-
cially macropods, but the long-term effect of
this predation, and whether or not the effect
is regulatory, cannot be assessed without
experimental studies (Sinclair 1989). For
some of the listed examples, alternative
explanations could be feasible for the
observed changes in prey abundance.
‘Cattle carrion enabled
dingoes to survive droughts and
subsequently to concentrate on
red kangaroos and perhaps
regulate their population
after a drought.’
In Queensland, analyses of bounties paid
annually on wild dogs and feral pigs over 24
years indicated that pig mortalities increased
more than threefold with every doubling of
wild dog numbers, and this inverse relation-
ship suggested that predation on pigs by
wild dogs was a limiting and potentially reg-
ulating factor for populations of feral pigs
(Woodall 1983). However, reanalysis of
Woodall’s data indicates that wild dog boun-
ties were negatively related to rainfall over
the previous year, suggesting that fewer wild
dogs were killed in the 12 months following
high rainfall (Choquenot et al. 1996).
Correcting for the effects of rainfall removes
the apparent relationship between pig mor-
tality rate and wild dog density. Other prob-
lems with the analysis of scalp returns are
identified in Section 6.2.1.
There has only been one experimental study
to assess the impact of dingo predation on
feral pig populations. This was at Kapalga in
northern Australia and clearly demonstrated
that predation alone did not regulate (see
Glossary) feral pig populations. Instead, pre-
dation by dingoes was one factor acting in
concert with interference competition from
buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) to limit (See
Glossary) feral pig numbers (Corbett 1995c).
That is, feral pig numbers would have been
higher if competition with buffalo and pre-
dation by dingoes were absent. Dingoes did
not cause higher pig mortality as pig abun-
dance increased.
Evidence from other regions of Australia
(Newsome and Coman 1989, Newsome
1990, Pech et al. 1992) indicates that preda-
tion alone can significantly curb prey popu-
lations only when prey numbers are initially
depressed by a widespread environmental
event such as drought in arid rangelands or
intense wildfire in temperate forests. The
theory is that prey are trapped in a ‘predator
pit’ (Walker and Noy-Meir 1982) where there
are too few animals successfully breeding for
births to exceed off-take by predation. At the
same time, the extra food that such circum-
stances usually provide allows the predators
to survive. For example, in arid central
Australia, cattle carrion enabled dingoes to
survive droughts and subsequently to con-
centrate on red kangaroos and perhaps regu-
late their population after a drought.
However, in tropical regions of Australia,
with the absence of prolonged droughts or
other circumstances to simultaneously
reduce populations of main prey, it is unlike-
ly that dingoes could ever limit feral pig pop-
ulations to low levels.
3.7 Interactions between humans
and wild dogs
There are few records of dingoes attacking
or killing Aboriginal people, either in camps
or in the wild but such incidents are not like-
ly to be reported. There are more reports of
dingo attacks on non-Aboriginal people but
most are anecdotal (Savant 1969). During the
Royal Commission into the Disappearance of
Azaria Chamberlain, evidence was presented
on the deaths of five children caused by
dingo attacks and several other dingo attacks
on children and adults throughout Australia
over the past 50 years or so (Morling 1987).
‘Aggressive behaviour is
apparently most common during
the dingo’s breeding season.’
In recent years, dingoes have become a major
tourist attraction at sites in outback Australia
and Fraser Island in particular. Consequently,
many visitors and residents have deliberately
or inadvertently fed dingoes to encourage con-
tact for close viewing and photographs. This
Bureau of Rural Sciences
60

has led to many dingoes and other wild dogs
losing their fear of people and occasionally dis-
playing aggression towards people, especially
at commonly used areas such as camping
grounds and picnic areas. Aggressive
behaviour is apparently most common during
the dingo’s breeding season. This provision of
food for wild dogs by people and the resulting
change in wild dog behaviour has been docu-
mented on Fraser Island by Marsterson (1994);
Moussalli (1994); Price (1994) and Twyford
(1994a,1994b). Current management of this
problem is addressed in Section 5.3.2.
Wild dog territories that are centred on areas
of high human activity, such as townships,
town refuge dumps, camping grounds, pic-
nic areas and resorts, appear to be smaller in
size but have relatively higher numbers of
wild dogs per pack compared to wild dogs
that rely on natural prey in bush areas
(Corbett 1998). The nature, frequency and
intensity of interactions with people are like-
ly to vary depending on the age and sex of
wild dogs, pack size and composition, time
of year, supplementary natural food supplies
and human reactions to wild dogs. Types of
wild dog–human interactions include wild
dogs stealing and soliciting food, wild dogs
stalking and harassing (nipping, ‘playful’ bit-
ing) humans and outright attacks.
Similar human–predator interactions (involv-
ing coyotes (Canis latrans) or bears (Ursus
spp.)) have been recorded in North America
(Howell 1982; Carbyn 1989). There appear
to be many parallels in the case of the coyote
(the ecological equivalent of the dingo in
North America) where many attacks are
directed towards young human females,
with a baby being killed in one instance
(Carbyn 1989).
Interactions between humans and wild dogs
may occur for other reasons. These include:
• Wild dogs regarding humans as competi-
tors or intruders into wild dog domains
and thus defending oestrous females,
pups and ‘hunting’ areas (garbage sites,
camp sites, barbecue areas, beaches).
• Wild dogs (mainly adults) regarding
humans (mainly children) as prey.
• Juvenile and subadult wild dogs ‘play-
ing’ with humans.
In relation to the latter example, it is likely
that in places such as Fraser Island and
Uluru, many generations of dingoes have
been reared in the close presence of humans
(imprinting) so many young dingoes engage
in what appears to be ‘playful’ behaviour.
These are normally directed towards other
dingoes. In reality, the dingoes are practising
behaviours that will be vital for their survival
in later life such as nipping and biting to
assess the vulnerability of prey (to avoid seri-
ous injury to themselves) or to achieve dom-
inance amongst litter mates. Humans, espe-
cially children, naturally do not understand
this and are most likely to turn and flee
(often shrieking) which generally will stimu-
late chasing and further aggression from din-
goes.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 61

Summary
The management of dingoes and other wild
dogs is affected by community attitudes and
perceptions. Opinions vary as to the pest sta-
tus of dingoes and other wild dogs. Some pri-
mary producers view them simply as an
unwanted pest to be removed from the envi-
ronment while other sections of society view
them as wildlife or icons to be conserved as
far as possible. Public opinion influences not
only the type of management strategies that
are developed but also the type of control
methods that may be deployed. Wider public
attitudes rightly demand that the techniques
used for wild dog control must be as humane
as possible and expose non-target animals to
minimal hazard. Management strategies that
do not address or acknowledge broad com-
munity attitudes are susceptible to disruption
or interference.
4.1 Community perceptions and
attitudes
Community attitudes towards dingoes and
other wild dogs are diverse and greatly affect
management decisions. Dingoes and other
wild dogs were condemned from the earliest
time of European settlement in Australia as
vicious killers of livestock and a threat to the
domestic animals raised by struggling set-
tlers. The dingo is also regarded by some
people as a desirable species for recreational
hunting (Allison and Coombes 1969) and
was hunted by early setters as a substitute for
foxes (Vulpes vulpes) (Rolls 1984). The term
‘dingo’ came into usage as an insult when
applied to a person. Later, the high profile of
the dingo saw it being used as an advertising
image (for example, Dingo Flour and Dingo
Bitter beer).
With the increased urbanisation of Australia
and a growing awareness of environmental
issues, other attitudes towards dingoes have
emerged. A recent demographically represen-
tative survey of 2000 Victorians of voting age
showed that 79% of respondents classified
wild dogs as pests regardless of the respon-
dents’ background (Johnston and Marks
1997). The survey did not ask respondents to
classify ‘dingoes’ as pests or otherwise. Given
that the majority of respondents regarded
other native species (including possums
(Phalangeroidea), kangaroos (Macropus spp.)
and wombats (Vombatus ursinus)) as ‘non-
pests’, the responses may have been different
if dingoes had been separately identified.
‘Nor is there a common
view about dingoes and other wild
dogs amongst livestock
producers.’
The dingo is viewed by many as an animal
which has an important place in Australian
ecosystems, and one which should be pre-
served as far as possible (Section 5.3.3). Such
attitudes have been enshrined in legislation
in some States and Territories (Sections 3.3
and 5.2). Strength of opinion can be influ-
enced by the perception of purity of strain;
conservationists wish to preserve pure din-
goes but see hybrids and feral dogs as a
threat to the dingo (Section 2.9). Others
believe that because a dingo-sized canid has
been present in Australia long enough to
have affected the biodiversity of the commu-
nities in which they occur, the removal of
wild dogs from these environments might
have unforeseen impacts on biodiversity,
and that some wild dogs should therefore be
retained irrespective of their genetic status.
Nor is there a common view about dingoes
and other wild dogs amongst livestock pro-
ducers. Sheep graziers would be unanimous
in condemning the presence of a single wild
dog near their flocks, whereas cattle produc-
ers tend to have a variety of opinions. Some
cattlemen are ambivalent towards dogs.
Others reflect previous or current bad experi-
ences of calf predation by wild dogs and reg-
ularly control them; for example, 71% of
Northern Territory pastoralists surveyed in
1995 indicated that dingoes were a major or
serious pest on their properties (Eldridge and
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 63
4. Community attitudes affecting management

Bryan 1995). Another group recognise the
potential role of dingoes in controlling
macropod abundance and are prepared to
experience some losses of calves in the belief
that overall enterprise productivity is better
when there is less potential competition for
forage between cattle and macropods
(Section 3.6.5). Still others tolerate dingoes
and other wild dogs until predation of calves
becomes apparent and then institute a con-
trol program (K. Watters, grazier, New South
Wales, pers. comm. 1984; D. Wurst, Parks and
Wildlife Commission (Northern Territory),
Northern Territory, unpublished data, 1995).
Some are strongly opposed to baiting
because of the perceived risk to their own
dogs. There is also the perception among
some landholders living near national parks
and other conservation reserves that wild
dogs belong to the government and therefore
responsibility for wild dog control on adja-
cent grazing lands lies with State agencies (J.
Burley, Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Victoria, pers. comm. 1999). As
with other groups, trappers hold different
views on the relative merits of different con-
trol methods and the role of wild dogs in ani-
mal communities (Ward 1986). The views of
trappers must be considered because these
people are often responsible for much of the
control effort spent on wild dogs.
In 1981, evidence from a series of public
meetings and submissions from landholders
within the original barrier fence in
Queensland (Holden 1991) showed that atti-
tudes toward wild dogs were explained in
part by the location of their holding in relation
to the fence. Similar trends are evident in
other States. Those individuals who have first-
hand and ongoing experience with livestock
predation by wild dogs generally express the
strongest sentiments. These people often rate
wild dogs as their biggest productivity inhibi-
tion. Those landholders that are far removed
from any threat of predation tend to be less
concerned about wild dogs and may be more
subject to influences from non-agricultural
sectors of the community. Fear of predation
by wild dogs has meant that in some areas
greater control effort has been spent on wild
dogs than other pests that may be more dam-
aging in a less obvious way.
Traditional Aboriginal groups generally per-
ceive dingoes and other wild dogs as a com-
ponent of the natural landscape with a right-
ful place therein. Dingoes often feature in
Aboriginal mythology and are therefore seen
as part of the cultural heritage of Australia.
These interests must be kept in mind when
devising management programs for dingoes.
In general, conflicts with the views of
Aboriginal people rarely occur because of
the alienation of traditional Aboriginal peo-
ple from most of the grazing areas where
control work is undertaken. However, where
Aboriginal people maintain an ongoing
affinity to these areas their concerns must be
considered and included in the planning
process.
‘In some areas greater
control effort has been spent on
wild dogs than other pests that
may be more damaging in a less
obvious way.’
Public perception of wild dogs as objects of
fear will also influence attitudes towards
local management. Without doubt, the most
publicised case of dingoes as predators of
humans involved the alleged taking of a
baby, Azaria Chamberlain, by a dingo at
Uluru in central Australia in 1980. Reaction to
the allegation led to an immediate control
program around the camping area where the
Chamberlains were staying. Local control
and education programs have been instigat-
ed in other national parks and nature
reserves in response to attacks on people
(for example, Fraser Island; Australian
Associated Press 1998).
As a result of these various views in society,
as well as the results of scientific research,
the approach to wild dog control has altered
considerably in the past 20–30 years
(Chapter 5). Management strategies now
focus on problem areas, that is, in livestock
paddocks and on neighbouring land. For
example, dogging or baiting forays are no
longer made into the vast areas beyond pas-
toral leases in Western Australia. Indeed,
such control work would be condemned as
being economically and environmentally
undesirable.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
64

Nevertheless, scientific research and analysis
does not always alter management practices.
For example, the usefulness of bounties has
been discredited in a number of reviews
(Section 5.1.1) yet the recent proposed removal
of bounties from Queensland legislation result-
ed in heated debate (C. McGaw, Department of
Natural Resources, Queensland, pers. comm.
1999). A compromise allowing the payment of
bounties by local governments resulted from
pressure by some community groups.
Attitudes about controlling wild dogs are
influenced by the control methods used. For
example, pressure from animal welfare
groups has resulted in changes to legislation
and policy for the use of leghold traps in
Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and
New South Wales. Some sections of the com-
munity do not accept the use of poisons, and
would oppose any control campaigns based
on baiting (Section 4.2.4). Indeed, some peo-
ple regard the killing of an animal, even if it
is considered to be a pest, as wrong.
4.2 Animal welfare issues
4.2.1 General
Animal welfare groups aim to ensure that all
animals are treated humanely and that
actions that cause stress and suffering should
be minimised as far as is feasible. Groups
such as the Royal Society for the Protection
of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the
Australian and New Zealand Federation of
Animal Societies (ANZFAS) accept that con-
trol of wild dogs may be required in certain
circumstances, but advocate restrictions on
the type of control techniques that are used.
For example, the RSPCA believes that the use
of 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) poison on
native species is unacceptable, and that its
use against introduced species should be
strictly controlled by legislation. Non-lethal
means such as exclusion fencing are encour-
aged.
Conversely, owners of livestock have legal
and moral obligations under the various State
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts to pro-
vide the best husbandry possible for their live-
stock and there are model codes of practice to
ensure this (Animal Health Committee, of the
Standing Committee for Agriculture 1990).
Predation by dogs is not humane and most
graziers are concerned by the suffering and
distress imposed on their animals. This is par-
ticularly so when surplus killing and injury
occurs. The adverse effects of predation on
the welfare of livestock is likely to influence
landholders’ attitudes to management of wild
dogs, including the control and conservation
of dingoes. Counter to this is the argument that
sheep should not be grazed in areas where
predation by wild dogs is likely and poses the
question whether governments should sub-
sidise wild dog control in such areas.
‘Counter to this is the argument
that sheep should not be grazed
in areas where predation by
wild dogs is likely.’
Clearly, welfare concerns must be consid-
ered in all control programs involving lethal
techniques. These should be as target-specif-
ic as possible and take into account maxi-
mum welfare for the target species as well as
welfare issues relating to the accidental cap-
ture or killing of other species.
4.2.2 Shooting
Shooting by skilled marksmen is probably
the most humane method of controlling wild
dogs and for this reason is the favoured con-
trol technique of the RSPCA. The objective
should be to kill the animal as quickly and
cleanly as possible with a shot to the head.
In some States and Territories, a Code of
Practice or government agency policy speci-
fies the minimum specifications (calibres,
projectile weight, range) for the shooting of
feral or pest animals (Section 6.4.2).
Shooting can usually only be viewed as an
opportunistic method of wild dog control,
although it can sometimes be useful to target
individual animals inside sheep zones. It is
not a cost-effective option for reducing pop-
ulations of wild dogs.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 65

4.2.3 Trapping
Steel-jawed leg-hold traps have been tradi-
tionally used in Australia for wild dog control.
These traps are generally viewed as inhu-
mane, with the bare steel jaws causing tissue
damage, serious cuts, broken bones, dislocat-
ed joints and sometimes amputation of feet of
the captured animal (Fleming et al. 1998). The
degree of injury and suffering of a trapped
animal is also related to the length of time that
the animal spends in the trap (that is, how
often traps are checked) and whether anal-
gesic drugs (C. Marks, Victorian Institute of
Animal Sciences, Victoria, pers. comm. 1998)
or poisons have been applied to the trap to
reduce stress or hasten death (Fleming et al.
1998). As well, the sites where traps are set
can greatly affect the likelihood of catching
non-target animals (Newsome et al. 1983b).
Different groups of non-target animals suffer
different levels of injury (Fleming et al. 1998).
For example, possums mostly had minor
injuries in Soft Catch‚ traps whereas 73% of
varanids experienced major trauma.
There is an increasing awareness of the inhu-
maneness of steel-jawed traps. Modifications
to existing and new traps and capture devices
that are more humane continue to be devel-
oped and are progressively being adopted.
The Victorian treadle-snare and the Victor
Soft Catch‚ padded trap and modified Lanes
traps have been shown to result in fewer
injuries to trapped animals (Meek et al. 1995;
Fleming et al. 1998) and their use is preferred
over steel-jawed traps by animal welfare
groups. In Victoria, the treadle snare has
replaced the steel-jawed trap for use in wild
dog control, except in special circumstances.
In New South Wales, steel-jawed traps are
outlawed, though the use of padded traps
and treadle snares is allowed. These must be
used in accordance with a code of practice
that specifies, amongst other things, that traps
should be checked daily. In South Australia,
steel-jawed traps are outlawed in the 60% of
the State outside the Dog Fence. Trapping is
still the preferred technique to target dingoes
killing sheep inside the fence and where poi-
soning has proved unsuccessful.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
66
Padding steel-jawed traps should be promoted to improve the humaneness of trapping (Source: P. Thomson).

‘There is an increasing awareness
of the inhumaneness of
steel-jawed traps.’
In some areas, the practice of applying
strychnine poison to the jaws of traps is
advocated. The strychnine is bound into a
cloth and the trapped animal bites on the
soft material and ingests the poison. This
results in a rapid death, and is seen by some
to be preferable to the animal remaining in
the trap until dying of exhaustion or expo-
sure, or being discovered many hours later
by the trapper. However, strychnine is
classed as an inhumane poison (Section
6.4.4) and its use for other purposes is not
sanctioned. Strychnine cloths are generally
favoured in the more remote pastoral
regions, where trappers cover large areas
and cannot return to their traps within a rea-
sonable time. Additionally, many doggers
believe that traps set for rogue animals
should not be visited too often as the pres-
ence of human scent near the trap may deter
the target animal (B. Morris, dogger, Yass
Rural Lands Protection Board (New South
Wales), pers. comm. 1998). Daily checking
of traps is simply not a practical option in all
circumstances. In Western Australia and
South Australia, steel-jawed traps can be
used for wild dog control only if strychnine
is applied to the traps. In New South Wales,
strychnine cloths must be applied to traps
that are not checked daily. A fast-acting,
more-humane replacement poison for
strychnine on trap jaws would be preferable
and requires investigation. (Section 8.7). The
use of 1080 poison on traps is not practical
because it is too slow acting.
4.2.4 Poisoning
The RSPCA is generally opposed to the use
of poisons (RSPCA 1997) but may accept tar-
get-specific baits containing humane toxins.
It is widely recognised that poison baiting
remains one of the few viable options avail-
able to control wild dogs, particularly in the
more remote rangeland areas (Section 6.4.4).
Strychnine baits are viewed as inhumane
because the affected animals remain con-
scious and appear to suffer pain and anxiety
from the onset of clinical signs through to
death from asphyxia and exhaustion. The
clinical signs of strychnine poisoning in dogs
are: deep reflexes and cramping of muscles,
particularly in the legs; muscular spasms that
increase in severity and extent through to
death from respiratory failure; and vomiting
and diarrhoea.
1080 is now the preferred poison for use in
wild dog control throughout Australia. It is a
far more selective poison than strychnine
and poses minimal risk to non-target ani-
mals. Canids are particularly susceptible to
1080. Many other mammals are less sensitive
to the poison, particularly many native
species in Western Australia that have
evolved an enhanced tolerance due to expo-
sure to plants containing 1080 (King 1984).
Birds and reptiles are in turn less susceptible
to 1080 than mammals.
‘Research is underway to
develop an orally-active analgesic
for incorporation into baits to
counter debate about the
humaneness of 1080.’
1080 causes the blocking of the Krebs cycle,
the major cellular biochemical mechanism
for releasing energy from food. In dogs, the
primary action of 1080 is on the central ner-
vous system. Symptoms appear after a latent
period of up to several hours, the period
varying according to the amount of poison
ingested. Dogs become excited, may
become nauseated, frequently howl, and
exhibit running fits (McIlroy, 1981). The final
phase of poisoning involves continuous
muscular contraction and death through lack
of oxygen supply to the respiratory centre.
During convulsions, affected dogs are
unconscious and appear to be unaware of
their surroundings, suggesting that they are
not suffering pain or distress (Gregory 1991).
Cases of sub-lethal human poisoning sup-
port the view that 1080 is a relatively
humane poison; victims convulsed but later
reported no recollection of pain or physical
distress (Gregory 1991). In Victoria, research
is underway to develop an orally-active anal-
gesic for incorporation into fox baits to
counter debate about the humaneness of
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 67

1080 and to reduce regurgitation and multi-
ple bait take by foxes (C. Marks, Victorian
Institute of Animal Sciences, Victoria, pers.
comm. 1997). Success in this work would
also have application to wild dog baiting.
4.2.5 Control at breeding dens
In the past, doggers searched for dens each
breeding season, in order to fumigate or cap-
ture the pups, bitch, and any other associat-
ed adults. This activity was aided by the use
of sniffer dogs to seek out the dens. As for
other control techniques, the associated wel-
fare issues need to be considered. The prac-
tice of blocking off the den entrances if the
pups cannot be retrieved is clearly unaccept-
able from a welfare aspect.
4.2.6 Exclusion fencing
The use of exclusion fencing is generally
regarded as causing fewer animal welfare
impacts than lethal control means. However,
fences alter the movements of larger ground-
based animals and care must be taken with
design and placement of fences so as not to
adversely affect their survival. Electric dingo
fences can trap and kill macropods, emus
(Dromaius novaehollandiae) and echidnas
(Tachyglossus aculeatus).
4.2.7 Biological control
Wild dogs are susceptible to many diseases
(Section 2.7). It is unlikely that the release of
diseases already present in the wild would
be effective for biological control. Given the
fact that lethal diseases generally cause suf-
fering and emaciation, and also affect
domestic dogs, this type of control is unlikely
to be supported by welfare groups or the
general public.
Other forms of biological control may be pos-
sible in the future. The RSPCA supports the
concept of hormonal control to limit repro-
duction (RSPCA 1997). The RSPCA and ANZ-
FAS strongly support the development of fer-
tility control measures, such as immunocon-
traception (Tyndale-Biscoe 1994), as humane
techniques for controlling pest animals.
Immunocontraception research is still in its
early stages and the technique has not yet
been used for the control of any pest species.
Domestic dogs and desirable populations of
dingoes would be susceptible to any form of
biological control targeting problem wild
dogs. Transmissible forms of fertility control
such as immunocontraception are therefore
unlikely to gain favour with the general com-
munity.
4.3 Public health issues
4.3.1 Diseases and parasites
There have been a number of publicity cam-
paigns aimed at reducing the prevalence of
hydatidosis (causal agent Echinococcus gran-
ulosus) in humans (D. Jenkins, Australian
Hydatids Control and Epidemiology Program,
pers. comm. 1998). Although occurrence is
rare, the disease can be fatal. In areas where
hydatid infection of domestic dogs and live-
stock is endemic, awareness of the disease is
highest. However, few people are aware of
the sylvatic hydatids cycles between wild dogs
and wildlife or between wild dogs and live-
stock (Section 3.4). Local awareness is likely to
increase participation in programs to control
wild dogs and increase the pressure on gov-
ernment instrumentalities to control wild dogs
at the interface of public and grazing lands.
If rabies (Rhabdoviridae) ever became estab-
lished in Australia, there would be a much
greater public impetus to control all free-
roaming dogs. Trade-offs between the desire
to conserve dingoes and concerns about
human health would require much discus-
sion, as the range of stakeholders involved
would increase substantially.
4.3.2 Interactions with humans
Aboriginal people sometimes used dingoes for
hunting, as food, decoration (fur), mobile blan-
kets or currency (scalps) (Meggitt 1965;
Hamilton 1972) but preferred European
domestic dogs when they became available.
These dogs remained in the camps and thus
obviated the need to seek new dingo pups
each year or to retain adult animals by break-
ing one of their legs. Domestic breeds also
barked and thus were better sentinels
(Hamilton 1972; White 1972).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
68

Free-roaming dogs are still common in
remote Aboriginal settlements and the pres-
ence of these dogs has human health impli-
cations for the communities (Section 3.4).
Human health programs that involve con-
trolling wild dogs in and around Aboriginal
communities need to address the potential
conflicts that arise from traditional Aboriginal
views of dingoes and other wild dogs
(Sections 3.3 and 3.7).
4.4 Conservation issues
Community attitudes to dingoes have
changed considerably since the early days of
European settlement when they were seen
only as a threat to the fledgling pastoral
industries. Research in the last 30 years has
greatly increased the understanding of din-
goes and led to more rational and effective
management techniques that significantly
reduce the risk that dingoes pose to the pas-
toral industries. Concurrently, there has been
an increase in public awareness of the
importance of conserving biodiversity.
Dingoes are now commonly perceived as
native fauna and are formally recognised as
such in some States (for example, New South
Wales). Consequently, there is now a public
expectation that dingoes will be conserved
as part of Australian biodiversity.
‘There is now a public expectation
that dingoes will be conserved as
part of Australian biodiversity.’
During the past 30 years, there has been con-
siderable conflict between conservationists
and managers of wild dogs. Three issues
have been central to this conflict. The first is
that the public perception of dingoes as a
native species creates an expectation that
they will be conserved. Thus, some sections
of the public are opposed to all wild dog
control, particularly when it is conducted in
conservation reserves.
Resolution of this conflict has been achieved
in some States and Territories by attributing a
different status to wild dogs dependent on
their location. For example, in New South
Wales, the National Parks and Wildlife
Service effectively recognises dingoes as
native fauna, and while they are ‘unprotect-
ed’ in conservation reserves, they are not a
declared noxious species until they move off
the reserve (Chapter 5). Control within con-
servation reserves is only permitted when
dingoes emanating from there are implicated
in stock losses and measures conducted out-
side the reserve have failed to solve the
problem.
‘Resolution of this conflict has
been achieved in some States
and Territories by attributing
a different status to wild dogs
dependent on their location.’
The second issue arising from this is the
dilemma of how to differentiate dingoes
from other wild dogs. This is compounded
by the exhibition of dingo coloration in
many hybrids. While DNA fingerprinting
might determine the frequency of dingo and
domestic breed genes, this technique does
not address public perceptions. The genetics
of a wild dog is largely irrelevant to many
people. These people are more concerned
with the appearance of a particular wild dog
and compare it with their concept of a dingo.
For conservation directions to be set, public
and expert inputs must be collected. A deci-
sion is needed on what proportion of a wild
dog population is required to be pure dingo
before conservation efforts are instituted.
The feasibility of conservation strategies on
the mainland also needs investigation. After
these decisions are made, conservation poli-
cy can be formulated.
The third issue is the risk to non-target
species during wild dog control programs
and particularly during aerial baiting pro-
grams with 1080. Many concerns about non-
target risks have been allayed by the seminal
works on the toxicity of 1080 to Australian
fauna by John Mcllroy and Dennis King and
their collaborators (McIlroy 1981). In some
States, reductions in loadings of 1080 in
baits, better bait placement and a reduction
in the number of baits used have resulted in a
theoretically negligible risk to non-target
species (Fleming 1996a). However, because
of public misconceptions or lack of educa-
tion about 1080, there remains some concern
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 69

about non-target risk during wild dog baiting
(Section 8.11). This issue needs to be
addressed by a public education program
and by field-based studies to assess non-tar-
get risk and confirm that wild dog baiting is
target-specific and effective.
The commonly held but unproven belief of a
universal, inverse relationship between wild
dog and fox abundance (Section 2.10.1) has
been popularly interpreted to mean that con-
serving dingo populations may limit the dis-
tribution and abundance of foxes and thus
reduce their impact on small and medium-
sized native animals. If this proves true, con-
serving dingoes and other wild dogs could
enhance the conservation of native species
threatened by foxes.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
70

Summary
In the past, legislation for the management
of wild dogs has included punitive Acts and
Acts dealing with the conservation of
wildlife. Dingoes have been included with
other dogs in early colonial legislation
designed to remove troublesome dogs and to
reduce the threat of predation of livestock.
Management of wild dogs relied heavily on
labour-intensive techniques of trapping,
shooting and ground baiting, with bounty
payments being offered as an incentive to
kill dogs. With cheap labour and materials,
and a profitable grazing industry, the erec-
tion of exclusion fencing was also feasible in
some parts of Australia, and became an
essential element of wild dog control in those
areas. Much of the control work was reac-
tive, dealing with problems as they arose.
Nevertheless, some strategic, preventative
control was carried out, and in extreme but
misguided cases, efforts were made to con-
trol wild dogs hundreds of kilometres from
the nearest sheep grazing enterprises.
The dingo is extinct in much of the sheep
and cereal production zones of eastern and
southern Australia because of habitat modi-
fication and the success of early poisoning
campaigns. The areas largely without wild
dogs are mostly separated from areas where
they are present by dog-proof fences that
were erected around the turn of the century.
In most States and Territories, obligations or
provisions are made for the destruction of
wild dogs in sheep and cattle grazing zones.
The Dog Fence, which runs for about 5600
kilometres from Fowlers Bay in South
Australia to south of Dalby in south-eastern
Queensland, is maintained or subsidised by
government agencies. Poisoning programs
form the basis of most lethal control efforts,
although trapping and shooting are impor-
tant in some contexts. Groups and boards
have provided finances that allow for better
management.
The scientific information on the biology
and movements of dingoes and other wild
dogs did not begin to accrue until the late
1960s. Since then, research has served to
correct or refute much of the folklore and
mythology surrounding dingoes and
enabled management programs to be more
soundly based. In addition, research has
allowed for the objective evaluation of con-
trol techniques and strategies. For example,
the demonstration of the effectiveness of
aerial baiting with 1080 in pastoral regions
of Western Australia led to this technique
being adopted far more widely than previ-
ously. A further influence on wild dog man-
agement has been a growing public interest
in conservation and animal welfare; con-
trol programs had to be not only effective
but to show due regard to welfare and risks
to non-target species.
Current management strategies focus on the
objective of minimising the impact of preda-
tion on livestock, not on killing wild dogs.
Aerial baiting with 1080 baits forms a
major part of most management programs
and is primarily targeted at limited zones
and buffers adjacent to livestock grazing
areas. Larger coordinated campaigns have
generally been adopted, being more efficient
and effective than localised, ad hoc efforts.
Ground-based baiting and trapping are still
carried out, although to a lesser extent than
earlier times. Far fewer professional doggers
are now employed, although they still play
an important role in targeting specific ani-
mals and in monitoring buffer areas.
Bounty payments have not been successful
in reducing predation by wild dogs and are
subject to abuse. The use of government-sub-
sidised bounties should cease.
The greatest threat to the survival of dingoes
is hybridisation with domestic dogs. In the
more settled coastal areas of Australia, and
increasingly in outback Australia, the barri-
ers between domestic dogs (feral and
owned) and dingoes are rapidly being
removed. Hence hybridisation is becoming
more common and the pure dingo gene pool
is being swamped. Already in the south-east-
ern highlands, more than half of wild dogs
are hybrids. The extinction of pure dingoes
on the mainland is probably inevitable
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 71
5. Past and current management

unless there are changes to community atti-
tudes and government policies on wild dogs.
In particular the keeping of ‘dingoes’, which
are often hybrids that later ‘go bush’, can
increase the rate of hybridisation of wild
dingo populations.
Conservation of dingoes was indirect until
the 1970s and 1980s when dingoes were
listed on conservation schedules in some
States and Territories. Policy and legislation
to encourage the conservation of pure din-
goes is required in some States and a con-
certed nation-wide effort is needed to ensure
that dingo conservation is not thwarted by
conflicting legislation. Simultaneously, the
control of wild dogs, including dingoes,
must be permitted where there is a recent
history of livestock predation.
The main hope of conservation is to educate
people about the plight of dingoes and to
manage pure dingoes on large islands such
as Fraser Island and Melville Island.
5.1 Past legal status and
management
5.1.1 Control measures and
legislation
During the 1800s, the combination of clear-
ing for farming, exclusion fencing, poisoning
and trapping resulted in the dingo becoming
extinct over much of its previous range in
southern Queensland, New South Wales,
Victoria and South Australia. By 1889, all
mainland States and Territories had enacted
legislation to facilitate and administer the
control of wild dogs. Control was organised
by government agencies or regional semi-
government organisations, run by boards of
local landholders, and funded by govern-
ment and by rates levied on landholders.
There were four elements to wild dog con-
trol.
The bounty system
Bounties were paid on presentation of a wild
dog scalp to the appropriate authority. The
first record of a bounty system is from 1836
in the Melbourne district (Breckwoldt 1988).
A bounty system was soon introduced in all
mainland States and Territories and persisted
until recently. The aim was to create an
incentive for the control of wild dogs. This
encouraged the perception that every wild
dog was a sheep killer regardless of its
access to sheep, the hunting and trapping of
wild dogs by individuals rather than groups,
and fraudulent claims (Tomlinson 1958a).
‘Despite the millions of dollars
paid in bounties, there is little
evidence that the bounty system
is or was an effective tool for
managing wild dogs.’
The control value of bounties has long been
debated. In 1930, the Royal Commission into
the Dingo and Stock Route Administration in
Queensland concluded that bounties should
not be paid as they were subject to fraud
(Holden 1991). Tomlinson (1958a) outlined
arguments for and against the system, con-
cluding that the evidence was overwhelm-
ingly against bounties. A resolution recom-
mending that all bounties in Australia be
stopped was passed by the Vertebrate Pests
Committee in 1975 (Smith, 1990). Bounties
were accordingly reduced to $2 (around $10
in current values) in South Australia in 1975
and were phased out in 1990. Another
inquiry, held in Queensland in 1975, recom-
mended that the bounty system be abolished
there (Smith 1990). Saunders et al. (1985)
proposed significant changes to wild dog
management in New South Wales including
the abolition of bounties. Because of that
review, bounties are no longer paid for wild
dog scalps in the Eastern Division of New
South Wales. A wide-ranging review of
bounty payments by Smith (1990) concluded
that all bounty systems were subject to fraud,
were ineffective in creating incentive, not
cost-effective and were not related to wild
dog abundance. More recently, Hassall and
Associates (1998) concluded that, world-
wide, most bounty schemes have failed to
deliver effective vertebrate pest control. In
response to the recommendations of Smith
(1990), new legislation in Queensland will
remove the provision for bounties although
local governments can still pay them. (C.
McGaw, Department of Natural Resources,
Queensland, pers. comm, 1999).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
72

Despite the millions of dollars paid in boun-
ties, there is little evidence that the bounty
system is or was an effective tool for manag-
ing wild dogs. In north-eastern New South
Wales, Harden and Robertshaw (1987) found
that between 1958 and 1983, two-thirds of
bounties were paid to graziers, the group at
risk from wild dog predation. The incentive
of the bounty was questionable because of
there was no relationship between the value
of a bounty and the number of bounties
claimed.
Professional doggers
The employment of professional doggers by
government agencies, wild dog control
organisations, and sometimes by groups of
landholders, was an important part of the
implementation of wild dog control.
Doggers were responsible for both strategic
and reactive control of wild dogs by trap-
ping, shooting and poisoning. They were
sometimes offered substantial additional
bounties by landholders to kill particularly
troublesome dogs.
‘As fencing materials
became more sophisticated and
more readily available, the use of
exclusion fences became
feasible.’
In some areas (for example, south-east New
South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital
Territory and some parts of Western
Australia) doggers are still an integral part of
ongoing wild dog control. In much of range-
land Australia, however, increasing labour
costs and the introduction of mandatory
wages for Aboriginal workers in the 1960s,
plus the declining profitability of the pastoral
industry, resulted in most stations ceasing to
employ specialist doggers. For these rea-
sons, and because of the greater adoption of
large-scale aerial baiting, the number of gov-
ernment-funded doggers has also fallen dra-
matically.
Shepherding and exclusion fencing
Before the extensive fencing of pastoral runs
to manage the movements of sheep, the first
method used to reduce predation by wild
dogs was shepherding of flocks by paid
shepherds. Shepherds were often sent into
isolated areas where they had to protect their
stock from human and wild dog predation.
Clearing and fencing of pastoral lands and
extensive strychnine baiting programs
pushed wild dog populations towards the
fringes of the ‘improved’ country as graziers
radiated from the central settlements.
Shepherding to prevent predation by wild
dogs is now only practised as a last resort (C.
Young, grazier, New South Wales, pers.
comm. 1984) because of the expense and
time constraints.
As fencing materials became more sophisti-
cated and more readily available, the use of
exclusion fences as barriers to wild dog
movements into sheep country became fea-
sible. Exclusion fencing for wild dogs began
at least 100 years ago with the erection of 13-
wire, 1.8 metre high fences laced with verti-
cal wires at about 15 cm intervals (Harden,
unpublished data 1991), and became
widespread after the introduction of wire
netting. Often a continuous fence resulting
from adjoining landholders fencing around
their own properties, protected groups of
properties. As examples: in Western Australia
fences were erected around holdings to
keep emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) out
and were maintained dog-proof (Holden
1991); and at least 1000 kilometres of non-
continuous barrier fencing was erected by
landholders on the New England tablelands
in New South Wales in the 1920s and 1930s
(NERDA undated c. 1966). Similarly, in South
Australia, about 3800 kilometres of private
dog fences were erected by 1908. Between
1896 and 1908, an additional 5000 kilometres
of fencing was erected to maintain the State
Vermin Fenced Districts of South Australia
(Holden 1991).
Governments and control organisations whol-
ly funded or subsidised the erection of other
barrier fencing. The best known such fence
(known as the Dog Fence or barrier fence)
extends 5614 kilometres from near Dalby in
south-eastern Queensland to Fowlers Bay on
the Great Australian Bight in South Australia
(Figure 2). Prior to shortening of the
Queensland section of this fence in 1989, it
was 8614 kilometres long (Breckwoldt 1988).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 73

The Queensland–New South Wales fence
(359 kilometres) was originally built as a rab-
bit-exclusion fence. This failed and it was
converted to a dog-proof fence in 1914.
However, the agreement between the States
requires that the fence be maintained rabbit-
proof. The fence between South Australia and
New South Wales was converted from a rab-
bit-proof fence to a dog-proof fence in 1917.
The New South Wales Wild Dog Destruction
Act 1921 placed the responsibility for the
exclusion fence under the Western Lands
Commission and an amendment to the Act in
1957 established the Wild Dog Destruction
Board (WDDB) which retains responsibility
for the fence and the payment of bounties for
scalps. The South Australian dog fence
replaced a series of separately fenced vermin
district fences in 1947 following introduction
of the Dog Fence Act 1946. Responsibility for
the fence is with the Dog Fence Board, mem-
bership of which is mostly landholders.
Poisoning
From the early 1800s, when strychnine was
found to be useful for poisoning wild dogs,
control programs were instigated at the
property level or cooperatively. Cooperation
between landholders was necessary because
strychnine was expensive and could only be
imported in quantities too large for individu-
al landholders. Stockmen carried strychnine
that they inserted into carcasses they found,
and in some areas bait stations were estab-
lished and maintained. In 1946, a manufac-
tured brisket fat and strychnine bait wrapped
in paper (the ‘Minty’ bait) was developed in
Queensland and was subsequently used in
Queensland, New South Wales, Western
Australia and the Northern Territory.
Aerial baiting began with experimental
drops of the Minty bait in Western Australia
and Queensland in 1946 (Tomlinson 1954),
and continued for a number of years there,
in the Northern Territory and in South
Australia. It was also used on the coast and
tablelands of New South Wales from 1957.
Since the mid-1960s, 1080 (sodium fluoroac-
etate) has largely replaced strychnine in
baits. However, strychnine can still be used
in baits in South Australia, Queensland and
parts of Western Australia. Because 1080 is
closely regulated, baiting programs are
under much tighter control than previously.
Both fresh meat and manufactured baits are
used.
‘Aerial baiting was generally
regarded as successful and
many dog fences were allowed to
fall into disrepair.’
1080 meat baits were first aerially distributed
in the Northern Tablelands of New South
Wales in 1964 and had replaced strychnine
baits in aerial baiting programs in most areas
by the late 1960s. Aerial baiting was general-
ly regarded as successful and many dog
fences were allowed to fall into disrepair.
The reduction in the area of Queensland
protected by the barrier fence could be
attributed to the perceived success of 1080
baiting, especially aerial baiting (Holden
1991). Fixed-wing aircraft were used until
1986, when helicopters became mandatory
for aerial baiting in the east of New South
Wales because baits could be placed with
more accuracy (Thompson et al. 1990).
Aerial baiting with 1080 has evolved consid-
erably to increase its efficacy against wild
dogs while reducing potential non-target
effects. It is now generally accepted as a
cost-effective, safe method for the extensive
strategic management of wild dogs
(Thomson 1986; Thompson and Fleming
1991), and is used in Queensland, New
South Wales, Western Australia and the
Northern Territory.
Aerial baiting is the major control method in
Western Australia where, in 1996–97, 823 900
baits were dropped during 505 flying hours;
the average number of baits used annually
has varied little over the past decade.
Similarly, in north-eastern New South Wales,
aerial baiting using helicopters is the primary
form of wild dog control.
Fixed-wing aircraft are used for baiting in
Queensland, western New South Wales and
Western Australia but not in the other States
and Territories.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
74

5.1.2 Past management strategies
When labour was cheaper, and before scientif-
ic information about dingo movements and
behaviour began to emerge, many control
operations took place that would now be
viewed as inefficient and inappropriate. In
Western Australia, for example, there was a
strong belief in dingo migration routes from far
distant ranges and deserts to the grazing leases
(Tomlinson 1958b). The attitude that any dingo
killed would be ‘one less to attack a sheep’ pre-
vailed. This led to major expeditions being
mounted to seek out dingo ‘breeding areas’
(Tomlinson and Blair 1952), and to consider-
able effort being expended in attempts to con-
trol dingoes in these remote areas, hundreds of
kilometres from the closest livestock.
Despite much wasted effort in earlier times,
there was still the recognition that a coordi-
nated, community approach to wild dog
control was the most effective strategy. This
generally took place in the form of ‘baiting
drives’, including aerial baiting (Tomlinson
1954). Tomlinson (1958b) wrote:
‘Wild dog baiting drives, organised on a dis-
trict-wide basis and combining all available
manpower and aids such as aerial baiting,
are without doubt the most effective destruc-
tion method…. Careful planning and
organisation to ensure the work is properly
coordinated, is carried out at the best possi-
ble time, and gives the most effective cover-
age, is essential. Possibly, the most important
requirement is to secure the participation of
the landholders in these drives and the con-
tinuation of control work afterwards.’
Over the years, this approach has been
refined, promoted and increasingly adopted,
as outlined in Section 5.1.3.
5.1.3 Historical /past organisation
of control
Since European settlement, two organisa-
tional levels of wild dog control have exist-
ed:
• By 1889, all mainland States had enacted
legislation to facilitate the control of wild
dogs (Breckwoldt 1988). Semi-govern-
ment administrative structures, usually
governed by boards of local landholders,
were created and empowered to levy rates
on landholders to fund the bounty system
and other control measures. These funds
were commonly supplemented by govern-
ment subsidies. For example, until the
mid-1980s, most of the control of wild
dogs in Victoria was by Government-
employed doggers. Groups to facilitate the
control of wild dogs were common in east-
ern Australia where the resources of the
local groups were supplemented by gov-
ernment contributions and rates collected
by the boards of management. Until recent
times, wild dog control groups often held
important social significance. Dog drives
and poisoning programs served as meet-
ings where neighbours could get together
to socialise and discuss other issues affect-
ing their holdings.
• Many properties, leases and runs
employed doggers and boundary riders
who had responsibility for trapping ‘ver-
min’ and maintaining fences in dog-proof
condition. Privately employed doggers
were more common in the extensive pas-
toral leases in northern central Queens-
land, South Australia and Western
Australia.
5.2 Current legal status (around
Australia)
5.2.1 Legislation
The legal status of dingoes and other wild
dogs varies between States and Territories
(Table 4). This status affects the control mea-
sures that are applied and the level of coop-
eration between individuals and groups.
Western Australia
Dingoes and hybrids are ‘declared animals’
under the Agriculture and Related Resources
Protection Act 1976 and are placed into
Categories A4, A5 and A6. These categorisa-
tions are determined by the Agriculture
Protection Board (APB) and are administered
by Agriculture Western Australia (AGWEST).
Populations must be controlled and animals
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 75

cannot be introduced or kept in captivity
except in approved institutions or under a
permit which carries specific conditions.
Although category A5 requires that popula-
tions should be controlled throughout the
State, it is recognised that dingoes pose no
threat in vast areas beyond the limits of pas-
toral or agricultural land. APB policy restricts
control activities to stocked land and its
immediate environs. Domestic dogs (run
wild, feral, or being at large) are classified in
Category A5, meaning that they must be con-
trolled. In municipal areas, domestic dogs are
covered by the Dog Act 1976.
Dingoes are covered by the Western Australian
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, administered
by the Department of Conservation and Land
Management (CALMWA). Under this Act, they
have been listed as ‘unprotected fauna’,
although they are not subject to control in fauna
reserves and National Parks without appropri-
ate consultation between CALMWA, landhold-
ers and AGWEST. Despite the declared pest sta-
tus of dingoes outside conservation estates,
they are not controlled over most of their range.
Part of the funding for wild dog control in
pastoral areas of Western Australia is derived
from rates levied on pastoral leases matched
by government funds.
Northern Territory
Dingoes are undeclared in all areas of the
Northern Territory (Table 4). They are
unprotected in all areas of the Northern
Territory outside parks, reserves, sanctuaries,
wilderness zones and the Arnhem Land
Aboriginal Reserve (Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act 1993). Although there is
no obligation on landholders to control
them, the Parks and Wildlife Commission
organises aerial and ground control pro-
grams if requested by graziers. The dingo
has been protected within national parks
and nature reserves since 1984 when din-
goes were removed from the declared ver-
min list. The Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Act 1976 requires that
traditional owners be consulted before any
wild dog management programs are under-
taken on their lands. Dingoes are unprotect-
ed in Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve.
South Australia
Dingoes and hybrids are ‘proclaimed’ pests
under the Animal and Plant Control Board
(Agricultural Protection and Other
Purposes) Act 1986 in the sheep zone south
of the Dog Fence (Figure 2). Dingoes must
be controlled and can only be kept there in
authorised zoos and wildlife parks. Monies
for the control of dingoes (Dingo Control
Fund) is levied from all landholders with
more than ten square kilometres and is
matched by the government.
North of the dog fence the dingo is regarded
as a legitimate wildlife species and although
unprotected, is afforded a level of protection
by the South Australian Dingo Policy
(Animal and Plant Control Commission
1993). This policy was formulated in 1977
with input from the Vertebrate Pests Control
Authority (now Animal and Plant Control
Commission), pastoralists, the Dog Fence
Board, the Pastoral Board and the Australian
Conservation Foundation. Beyond a 35 kilo-
metre-wide baited buffer zone, conservation
of dingoes is enhanced by restrictions to
ground baiting, prohibition of aerial baiting
and phasing out of bounties.
The Dog Fence Board, under the Dog Fence
Act 1946, administers maintenance of the
2178 kilometre dog fence. Funding is shared
equally between the Government and land-
holders receiving protection of the fence.
Queensland
Dingoes and other wild dogs are declared
pests under the Rural Lands Protection Act
1985. The responsibility for wild dog control
in Queensland lies with landholders and is
administered by the Land Protection Branch
of the Department of Natural Resources
(QDNR) and local governments. Dingoes
and dingo hybrids can only be kept with
ministerial approval and this is restricted to
zoos and wildlife parks. The Queensland
barrier fence (about 2500 kilometres long)
(Figure 2) and funding for its maintenance
has averaged around 60% from State funds
and 40% from ‘precepts’ (levees) charged
within the ‘benefited area’ over the long
term. Local governments also maintain a
number of smaller ‘check’ fences. A team of
Bureau of Rural Sciences
76

people employed by QDNR is responsible
for the continued maintenance of the fence.
New South Wales
The Act to Consolidate the Acts for the
Protection of Pastures and Live Stock from
the Depredations of Noxious Animals 1898
in New South Wales declared certain animals
including ‘native dogs’ noxious and obliged
land owners to control them. The Pastures
Protection Act 1939 reiterated this position as
did the Rural Lands Protection Act 1989 and
the Rural Lands Protection (Amendment)
Acts 1994 and 1997. The wild dog policy of
the National Parks and Wildlife Service
(National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974)
effectively protects dingoes within national
parks and nature reserves, and the dingo is
recognised as a native species under the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
The Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 allows
wild dogs to be declared as pest animals and
requires that the government be responsible
for their management on government lands.
Dingoes can be kept as pets under the
restrictions of the Companion Animals Act
1998.
In the Western Division of New South Wales,
the WDDB administers the control of wild
dogs and is responsible for the maintenance
of the 584 kilometres of the Dog Fence
(Figure 2). The Board was established under
the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921 and is
funded by rates on Western Division land-
holdings and State Government subsidies.
Australian Capital Territory
The Nature Conservation Act 1980 in the
Australian Capital Territory defines protected
species in the Territory which includes din-
goes. Control of wild dogs, including din-
goes, on private lands is allowed subject to a
permit authorising the killing of a protected
species being issued by Environment ACT.
Victoria
In Victoria, dingoes are offered some protec-
tion within the lands administered under the
National Parks Act 1975 through the Wild Dog
Policy of the National Parks and Conservation
Reserves Guidelines and Procedures Manual.
Elsewhere they were ‘declared vermin’ as were
all wild dogs under the Vermin and Noxious
Weeds Act 1958 and, since its repeal, under the
Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.
Landholders have a legal obligation to control
declared animals on land they own or occupy.
Tasmania
There have never been dingoes in Tasmania
and the import of dingoes is banned along
with a schedule of other exotic animals
(National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970).
Punitive action against feral and commensal
dogs preying upon livestock is covered
under the Dog Control Act 1987.
5.3 Current management
strategies
5.3.1 Threats to livestock
It is now widely accepted that the threat to
livestock from wild dogs comes from within
the stocked areas and immediately adjacent
‘refuge’ areas. This has been supported by
considerable scientific research (Section 2.4).
With the increasing need to achieve the opti-
mum cost-effectiveness of control work, the
message to managers about confining work
to high-risk areas becomes even more attrac-
tive. This coincides with a greater public
interest in the preservation of dingoes
(Chapter 3), and a greater public scrutiny of
lethal control methods (Chapter 4).
One of the major changes in management
strategies has been the abandonment of the
bounty system in some States and Territories
(Section 5.1.1). Many of the arguments sur-
rounding bounties are well recognised,
although it is worthwhile emphasising several
that have undoubtedly hampered effective
wild dog control in the past, and may well still
do so in some areas. Apart from the encour-
agement of fraudulent practices, the payment
of bonuses encourages a ‘scalp count’ mental-
ity. This can result in the targeting of areas
where dogs are easy to catch, rather than
areas where dogs are posing the greatest risks
to livestock. As well, bounties clearly encour-
age the use of techniques that yield easily-
found carcasses (trapping, shooting, and the
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 77

use of inappropriate poisons). There is strong
evidence in Western Australia that the use of
highly efficient 1080 baiting is not undertaken
by some operators because carcasses are sel-
dom found (Chapter 6). Success of control
operations should be measured by a reduc-
tion or elimination of livestock losses, not by
a scalp count.
‘Success of control
operations should be measured by
a reduction or elimination of
livestock losses, not by
a scalp count.’
The one exception to the general failure of
bounties in preventing livestock losses is the
case of affected landholders paying large
bounties for the destruction of identifiable
dogs responsible for extensive predation on
sheep (that is a ‘rogue animal’ bounty or
‘smart’ bounty, Hassall and Associates 1998).
Because ‘rogue’ animals have often thwarted
considerable attempts to kill them, they may
take a long time to catch, and although the
sums offered may appear large ($100–$1000,
E. Lackey, Rural Lands Protection Board
(New South Wales), Inverell, pers. comm.
1984), the effort required to catch the offend-
ing dog(s) and the cost of their impact may
also be large. This happens on a case-by-
case basis and is different from the standard
bounty system.
All of these factors have driven control
authorities to adopt cost-effective, target-
specific and humane control techniques and
strategies. The major features of current wild
dog management in Australia are sum-
marised below:
• A strategic approach to management, with
an emphasis on identifying and concen-
trating control in areas where stock are at
risk.
• A streamlined control effort to reflect the
degree of risk (the objective in sheep
grazing areas being to keep paddocks
free of wild dogs, with less stringent
requirements in the case of cattle enter-
prises).
• Conducting control work in buffer areas
immediately adjacent to stocked pad-
docks, to provide a sink for dispersing
wild dogs to settle before they reach the
paddocks.
• The application of control on a larger
scale and integrating the efforts of differ-
ent groups.
• An increased use of aerial and ground
baiting with 1080 as cost-effective, strate-
gic control methods.
• Less reliance on professional doggers and
the bounty system than previously
(although bounties are still paid in
Queensland, the Western Division of New
South Wales, and parts of Western
Australia).
• Acts and policies to protect dingoes within
national parks and similar fauna reserves
in some States and Territories providing a
legislative framework by which dingoes
can be conserved.
5.3.2 Attacks on people
Wild dogs which come into close contact
with people may become aggressive (Section
3.7). Authorities have attempted to manage
such problems through culling and/or legis-
lation to control the feeding of wild dogs and
through a public education program.
Warnings about the dangers (to humans) of
feeding wild dogs and seeking close contact
are sometimes provided in signs and
brochures. People, especially children, who
live in areas where wild dogs (including din-
goes) are present, need to be taught safe and
appropriate behaviour towards dogs.
In addition to culling, methods to minimise
wild dog–human interactions in tourist areas
may include aversive conditioning techniques
that educate dingoes to avoid specific areas
(Tauchmann 1998). For example, food scraps
spiked with lithium chloride, which if eaten
will cause dingoes to vomit, can be placed
around camp grounds. Similarly, devices
which emit high pitched sounds and impinge
on the dingo’s sensitive hearing might be a
deterrent; as are electric shocks administered
by modified cattle prodders (dingo prodders)
or electrified fences (Bird 1994). Other deter-
rents include weapons that fire kinetic energy
Bureau of Rural Sciences
78

rounds (sting balls), bean bags, or sponge car-
tridges (containing an irritant) (English and
Taske 1998). The effectiveness of all these
approaches for deterring dingoes is largely
unevaluated (Section 8.7).
5.3.3 Conservation of dingoes
(i) Public and government
education
Education programs are required to help
people recognise the dingo as a native
Australian species, understand its ecological
role and its plight, and push for policies to
retain it as part of Australia’s national her-
itage.
‘Governments can use improved
knowledge of dingo ecology to
instigate better control methods.’
To prevent hybridisation, people who wish
to keep pure dingoes or hybrids as pets
should require permits and these animals
should be neutered. Hybridisation would
also be reduced if domestic dogs kept in out-
back mining towns, outback cattle stations
and Aboriginal settlements in wilderness
areas such as Jabiru in Kakadu National Park,
were neutered unless they are specifically
kept for breeding. However, introducing
such changes would require extensive con-
sultation with dog owners in these places.
State and Territory governments can play
their part here by recognising the overall role
dingoes and other wild dogs play in wilder-
ness and pastoral areas, and by legislating
accordingly. The Northern Territory
removed dingoes from the pest list in 1976
but does not protect them, except in parks,
reserves and in Arnhem Land. In South
Australia in 1977, dingoes north of the Dog
Fence (60% of the State) were declassified as
pests, but not protected. Survival of the
dingo is ensured by restricting the availability
of organised baiting campaigns to certain
areas and to times when dingoes are present
in excessively high numbers and causing
hardship for cattle producers. No bounties
are paid on dingo scalps and trapping and
the aerial laying of baits is prohibited outside
the Dog Fence. Dingoes remain proclaimed
pests in the 40% of the State inside the dingo
fence. New South Wales protects dingoes
only in national parks and the conservation
estate, as does the Australian Capital
Territory. Dingoes remain ‘declared pests’
subject to various levels of control through-
out Queensland, Victoria and parts of
Western Australia. Any new laws on the
keeping of dingoes by the general public
should take into account the fact that such
general ownership will increase the rate of
hybridisation (Corbett in press).
Governments can also use improved knowl-
edge of dingo ecology to instigate better con-
trol methods. For example, the Northern
Territory Government was the first to stop
annual broadscale aerial baiting and the
Western Australian Government drew on new
knowledge about dingo movements to set up
buffer zones (nominally two dingo territories
wide) between pastoral and wilderness areas.
(ii) Dingo preservation societies
The Australian National Kennel Council
(ANKC) is a co-ordinating body for State and
Territory canine controlling organisations. The
ANKC recognises the dingo as an official dog
breed and has adopted it as Australia's national
breed with the proviso that exhibition, breed-
ing or ownership of dingoes is not allowed in
States where these activities are prohibited. In
some States, preservation societies (such as
the Australian Native Dog Conservation
Society Ltd at Bargo, the Australian Dingo
Conservation Association Incorporated at
Erindale in New South Wales and the Dingo
Farm at Chewton in Victoria) legally obtain
dingoes to preserve and enjoy them. The phi-
losophy and attitude of such societies is
admirable and their aims can be achieved if
they take a united and scientifically valid
approach. This is being done by the Bargo and
Erindale groups that are collaborating with
researchers at the University of New South
Wales (Barry Oakman, Australian Dingo
Conservation Association Incorporated, New
South Wales, pers. comm. 1999). Otherwise
dingoes may become inbred or the artificial
environment and selective breeding may dis-
courage the natural selection of wild charac-
teristics. The best scientific knowledge must
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 79

be used to ascertain the dingo's general and
specific characteristics and this knowledge
should be derived from samples collected
over most of the dingo's huge geographic
range in Australia and Asia.
With agreement from ANKC affiliated State
and Territory canine councils or associations
and the dingo preservation societies, a nation-
al register of dingoes and breeders could be
constituted. The following recommendations
would ensure that only pure dingoes were
registered:
• Registered dingo breeders ensure that
their stock comprises only pure dingoes.
At present, this can only be done using
skull measurements from dead animals
supported by coat colours and breeding
patterns. In future, dingoes may be
assessed for purity by DNA fingerprinting
techniques (Wilton et al. 1999) or possibly
by skull measurements from x-rays of live
dingoes.
• Only verified pure dingoes be included on
the national register; that is, animals
whose parents are both from a pure dingo
breeding line confirmed by the skull mea-
surements or DNA analysis of the found-
ing parents of that line. During the initial
years when stocks of proven pure dingoes
are low, care must be taken to minimise
inbreeding and other genetic problems. It
should be a registration requirement that
the purity of every third generation of
each breeding line is confirmed by refer-
ence to skull measurements.
• The overseeing canine controlling bodies,
dingo preservation societies and registered
breeders be encouraged to educate the
general public about the plight of dingoes
and the measures being taken to preserve
them. This education should include the
responsibilities and problems of keeping
dingoes in captivity and the reasons why
most people would not qualify to keep a
dingo. In addition, close collaboration with
the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and other dog
'shelters' should be established to ensure
that suspected dingoes and hybrids are
culled rather than 'recycled' to members of
the public.
• Most importantly, considerable effort be
made to win over members and support-
ers of the pastoral industries, particularly
those in the sheep industry. Accordingly,
the interested bodies should assist govern-
ments to pass legislation that not only
ensures the preservation of pure dingoes,
but safeguards the credibility of preserva-
tion societies and combats the chicanery
that unscrupulous 'dingo breeders' might
employ.
(iii) Island refugia
It is unlikely that most Australian mainland
habitats will stay or become free of hybrids,
so that large offshore islands and other refu-
gia offer the best hope of preserving pure
dingoes in their natural habitat (Corbett
1995a). There are many islands around the
Australian coastline, representing many cli-
mates and habitats, excepting hot deserts.
Some, such as Fraser Island, Melville Island
and Groote Eylandt, are large enough for
dingoes to live and breed in natural condi-
tions.
Hybrids would need to be eliminated. Dingo
populations would need to be managed so that
they did not over-exploit their natural food
supply and crash. Also, local regulations ban-
ning the hand-feeding of dingoes must be
enacted and strictly adhered to; otherwise
many dingoes will not only become depen-
dent on food handouts but also become accus-
tomed to the close presence of humans. This
increases the risk of dingoes annoying or biting
people. Management plans, such as the one
developed for Fraser Island (Queensland Parks
and Wildlife Service 1999), are essential for the
management of dingo populations on island
refugia.
Islands do not necessarily need to be off-
shore. They could be islands of well-protect-
ed and maintained sanctuaries on the main-
land, which would have the advantage of
additional habitats, such as deserts, not avail-
able on offshore islands. Such sanctuaries
already exist on the mainland for conserva-
tion of endangered mammals and birds
(Wamsley 1998).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
80

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 81
Table 4: Australian legislation and policies for dingoes and other wild dogs. D= Declared animal which land owners and occupiers are obliged to control; U= Undeclared animal
which land owners and occupiers have no obligation to control or protect; P= Protected animal which it is an offence to kill; N= Not declared noxious within lands managed by some
State agencies; some protection afforded to dingoes either through policy or in practice.
QLD
D whole State
DD
Department of
Natural Resources;
local government
NSW Agriculture;
Rural Lands
Protection Boards
Agriculture
Western
Australia
Parks and
Wildlife
Commission
Animal and Plant
Control
Commission
Department of
Natural Resources
and Environment
ACT Parks and
Conservation
Service
Department of
Primary Industries,
Water and
Environment
Environment
Australia
Obliged to control
in pastoral areas
Obliged to
reduce/control
numbers where
causing damage
No obligation to
control or protect
Obliged to control
in sheep pastoral
areas
Obliged to control
in pastoral areas
It is an offence to
kill these animals
Import prohibited Dingoes protected
on Commonwealth
land
Landholders
required to control
in all areas
Rural Lands
Protection Act
(1985); Nature
Conservation Act
1996
Wild dog
Destruction Act
1921; National
Parks and Wildlife
Act 1974;
Threatened
Species
Conservation Act
1995; Rural Lands
Protection
(Amendment) Act
1998;
Companion
Animals Act 1998
Agriculture and
Related
Resources
Protection Act
1976; Wildlife
Conservation Act
1950
Territory Parks
and Wildlife
Conservation Act
1993
Animal and Plant
Control
(Agricultural
Protection and
Other Purposes)
Act 1986
Catchment and
Land Protection
Act 1994;
National Parks Act
1975
Nature
Conservation Act
1980; Dog
Control Act 1975
National Parks and
Wildlife Act 1970;
Dog Control Act
1987
Wildlife Protection
(Regulation of
Exports and Imports)
(Amendment) Act
1995
Status of
dingoes
Status of wild
dogs
Agencies
responsible for
management
Landowner or
occupier
responsibility
Relevant
legislation
NSW
D pastoral areas
N NPWS land
WA NT SA VIC ACT TAS Commonwealth
D pastoral areas
N National Parks
U1D inside barrier
fence
N other areas
D pastoral areas
N National Parks
PNot present
Import prohibited
Export not permitted
P National Parks
DU1DDDangerous dogs
may be destroyed
Subject to control Controlled where
impact demonstrated
continued over page

Bureau of Rural Sciences
82
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes
No NoNo
No
NoNo
Yes
Bonuses paid2
Government
finance3
Coordinated
control4
Western Division
only
Yes (Pilbara and
Gascoyne/
Murchison)
1Dingoes are undeclared in all areas of the Northern Territory and are unprotected outside parks, reserves, sanctuaries, wilderness zones and the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve.
2Bonuses paid on presentation of proof of destruction of a wild dog; usually a scalp. Bonuses are not paid under Conservation or Wildlife Acts.
3Government assistance to control wild dogs provided through barrier fence maintenance, the employment of doggers and subsidisation of baiting costs. Government finance is not available under
Conservation or Wildlife Acts.
4Coordinated control groups are encouraged or required.
Table 4 continued
QLD NSW WA NT SA VIC ACT TAS Commonwealth

Summary
To formulate management plans, some
measure of trends in dog population densi-
ties is required, although an assessment of
total numbers is not necessary. Trends in
numbers indicate potential predation
threats to livestock and allow advance
action to be taken. Threats vary according
to the type of livestock at risk. What may be a
‘safe’ rise in the abundance of wild dogs on
a cattle station might seriously threaten the
viability of a sheep station.
To assess the effectiveness of programs to
manage wild dogs, it is essential to monitor
the impacts of wild dogs on livestock produc-
tion. Although knowledge of trends in wild
dog numbers may assist in determining
whether a new management approach is
effective, the most important measure of suc-
cess is a reduction in livestock losses due to
wild dogs.
The principal techniques to control wild
dogs are exclusion fencing, shooting, trap-
ping and poisoning. Exclusion fences range
from the famous barrier ‘dog fences’ of
Australia, which aim to keep wild dogs from
moving into huge sections of various States,
to shorter fences maintained to protect indi-
vidual properties. Traditionally, fences have
been constructed from wire netting, but
electric fences are now used in some areas.
Poisoning with 1080 is the most cost-effec-
tive lethal means of reducing populations of
wild dogs over large areas of remote or inac-
cessible country. Various types of bait are
used, with methods of placement ranging
from burying individual baits to dropping
baits from aircraft. Trapping is still used for
wild dog control and will probably always
be needed to target particular dogs that can-
not be removed by other means.
At present, there are no suitable agents for
the biological control of wild dogs. Although
in many ways a theoretically attractive con-
trol option, biological control would have
potential drawbacks, including the risk to
domestic dogs, and the threat to the conser-
vation goal of maintaining populations of
dingoes in reserve areas.
6.1 Introduction
Programs to manage wild dogs need to be
strategically based, focusing the effort in
areas where the highest risks to livestock
occur. Not only is this economically sound, it
also takes account of the conservation status
of dingoes in areas where they pose little
hazard to livestock. Vertebrate pest control
programs are coming under increasing
scrutiny by the public and the need for
implementing each program must be soundly
justified. There is also a need to justify the
control methods used, not only in economic
terms, but also on the grounds of animal
welfare (Section 4.2) and hazards to non-tar-
get species.
‘Managers should avoid the
pitfall of continuing with action
that is based on tradition rather
than an objective assessment of
the best options for addressing
their current wild dog problem.’
This chapter outlines the various techniques
that managers can use to effectively plan,
implement and evaluate the effectiveness of
management programs. The range of control
techniques that are available are described,
and suggestions are given on the circum-
stances that warrant their use. Strategies will
vary from region to region across Australia,
but the fundamental aim of most manage-
ment programs, to protect livestock from
wild dog attacks, will remain the same.
Managers need to be aware of all options.
They should avoid the pitfall of continuing
with a course of action that is based on tradi-
tion rather than an objective assessment and
evaluation of the best options for addressing
their current wild dog problem.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 83
6. Techniques to measure and manage impact and
abundance

6.2 Estimating abundance
6.2.1 Background
Wild dogs are elusive, mostly active at dawn,
dusk and during the night, have seasonally
variable patterns of activity and usually
occur at relatively low densities (Chapter 2).
These factors all contribute to the difficulty
of obtaining accurate measures of wild dog
abundance. However, measures of absolute
density are usually not necessary and most
managers only need a measure of changes in
abundance that may result from manage-
ment programs or environmental conditions
(for example, changes in the availability of
food). Such changes may indicate, for
instance, that an increasing threat is emerg-
ing, warranting a reallocation of resources or
indicate the success or otherwise of a control
program.
Scalp returns are not a good measure of the
abundance of wild dogs because they are
strongly influenced by the level and type of
control effort. For example, scalps are rarely
recovered during baiting programs (Section
6.4.4). Scalp returns may also reflect the
expertise of a particular operator, rather than
reflecting the number of wild dogs in an
area. Scalp returns would only be a guide to
numbers if the same control methods were
used throughout, and the effort remained
constant. These criteria are seldom met, and
in any event, capture success can decline
over time as surviving animals become
increasingly wary.
In many instances, estimates of the number
of wild dogs in an area, based on simple
counts of footprints, or sightings of wild
dogs, provide sufficient information on
which to base management decisions. In
sheep paddocks, for example, the presence
of any wild dogs warrants some control
effort because sightings of wild dogs are
highly correlated with predation (Fleming
and Korn 1989) and because once predation
commences it will continue until the preda-
tor or the sheep are removed (Thomson
1984a). In cattle grazing areas, assessments
of potential risk may be related to the size of
groups or packs of wild dogs seen in the
area. In this case, the regular sighting of large
packs throughout the area could indicate an
increased risk of predation on calves, partic-
ularly if coinciding with a decline in the
availability of the wild dogs’ usual prey.
On a broader scale, managers may require a
measure of overall trends in wild dog densi-
ties, particularly in the ‘refuge’ areas and
buffer areas adjacent to livestock paddocks.
In these situations, the option of carrying out
preventative control is more efficient than
undertaking reactive control after damage
has already started. The most practical
means of measuring changes in population
density is to derive indices of abundance.
The level of precision of the indices is most
important. If the inherent variability of the
indices is too large, then real changes may
remain undetected or changes may be indi-
cated when none really occurred.
‘In many instances,
estimates based on simple
counts of footprints, or sightings
of wild dogs, provide sufficient
information on which to base
management decisions.’
In most circumstances, indices of abundance
are adequate to assess the effectiveness of a
control program. Indices of abundance are
also useful for making comparisons between
sites of the effectiveness of a particular strate-
gy for reducing abundance. If conservation
of dingoes is the aim, the long-term numbers
of dingoes must be assessed. Regular
mark–recapture assessments of areas with
pure dingoes, coupled with DNA sampling
would be required to assess the success of
such a conservation program.
Detailed discussions on techniques and anal-
yses for measuring population abundance
are given in Otis et al. (1978), Caughley
(1980), and Caughley and Sinclair (1994).
Some of the most useful techniques for
deriving counts or indices of wild dog num-
bers for management purposes are described
in the following sections.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
84

6.2.2 Sign counts
Sign counts are often the most suitable meth-
ods for assessing relative abundance. Faecal
deposits detected by trained ‘sniffer’ dogs can
be used to index abundance (B. Morris, dog-
ger, Yass Rural Lands Protection Board (New
South Wales), pers. comm. 1998), as can foot-
prints. Sign counts can be ‘passive’ (that is,
the animals are detected in their normal
movements without detection altering their
behaviour, for example, faecal deposits per
unit time), or ‘active’ (that is, the animals are
encouraged by lures to leave their sign at sta-
tions, for example, scent stations and bait sta-
tions, see below). Sign counts can be made
along roads (Allen et al. 1996; Catling et al.
1997; Edwards et al. 2000), animal tracks and
creek beds (Fleming et al. 1996) or at ran-
domly-placed or stratified stations (Mahon et
al. 1998). The main problem with ‘passive’
indices is that it is often difficult to generate
sample sizes large enough to adequately
quantify low-density populations of wild
dogs. On the other hand, ‘active’ indices may
interfere with normal behaviour patterns and
this can influence counts. In both cases, the
relationship between actual abundance and
the index is assumed rather than known.
Further work to determine the relationship
between indices and abundance is required.
A study is currently being undertaken in the
Eastern Highlands of Victoria which will shed
light on the relationship for that environment
(F. Gigliotti, Department of Natural Resources
and Environment, Victoria, pers. comm.
1999).
Many studies of carnivores in North America
have relied on scent stations to obtain
indices of abundance. These ‘stations’ con-
sist of an area of cleared ground on which
tracks can be readily seen, with a scent lure
used to attract animals to the site. The princi-
ple underlying this method is that the visita-
tion rates are proportional to animal density.
However, visitation of scent stations has
been shown to be independent of density for
some species (Smith et al. 1994). Bait stations
are essentially scent stations modified by
placing a bait in the centre. For canids, it is
recommended that the baits be covered with
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 85
Cleared transects allow track counts to be used as an index of wild dog acitivity (Source: Queensland Rural Lands
Protection Board).

soil to avoid removal by birds (Allen et al.
1989; Thompson and Fleming 1994).
‘Further work to determine the
relationship between indices and
abundance is required.’
Frequency of visitation to both scent stations
and bait stations would be affected by fac-
tors including spacing of individual stations,
presentation of baits and attractants, habitat
differences between sites, frequency of
operations, length of index period and quali-
ty of tracking surfaces. These factors should
be standardised to facilitate within and
between site comparisons. Bait stations can
also be used to assess cumulative bait
uptake. This can then be used as an abun-
dance estimator. Thompson and Fleming
(1994) were able to demonstrate that cumu-
lative bait uptake data produced reliable
indices of fox (Vulpes vulpes) abundance,
with low variability.
6.2.3 More detailed counts or
estimates for research
In most circumstances, indices of abundance
are adequate to assess the effectiveness of a
control program as changes in abundance
are reflected by changes in the indices.
However, for more detailed estimates of
numbers for specific research studies, other
methods are also used. These include
mark–recapture studies, where animals are
live-trapped, marked (tagged and collared
with plain or radio-collars), then released.
Estimates are made of the overall population
density when marked animals are either
recaptured or re-sighted during specific trap-
ping or monitoring phases. Estimates are
affected by the altered behaviour of marked
animals. Increased wariness after initial cap-
ture, for example, can produce overesti-
mates of the overall population (Caughley
1980).
A novel assessment of population assess-
ment that may have potential for monitoring
wild dogs has been developed for grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos) in Canada (Mowat and
Strobeck 2000). DNA profiles are established
from the hairs of bears that visit a bait site
and mark–recapture analysis is used to
determine population size. Likewise in
California, DNA residual in faeces has been
used to identify individual mountain lions
(Puma concolor) (Ernest et al. in press).
DNA recovered from mountain lion saliva
left in wounds on bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis) can then be matched to individ-
ual lions identified from faecal DNA (H.
Ernest, University of California, Davis, pers.
comm. 2000). Because mountain lions are
mostly loners, control can then be targeted at
the individuals responsible for killing
bighorn sheep. In future, problem individual
wild dogs might be better targeted through
DNA analysis of faeces, saliva and tissues
from captured wild dogs. That is, salivary
DNA from wounds on sheep identifies the
individual wild dog; faecal DNA identifies
where the wild dog lives and tissue DNA
confirms that the wild dog killed by con-
trollers was indeed responsible for killing the
sheep.
Cyanide baiting is a technique that can be
used by researchers to generate ‘catch-per-
unit-effort’ (CPUE) indices. Algar and Kinnear
(1992) demonstrated the usefulness of cyanide
baiting to generate CPUE indices of fox abun-
dance. The technique has not yet been fully
assessed for use with wild dogs. Using the
known number of removals obtained by such
a program, cyanide baiting also has the poten-
tial for estimation of absolute abundance. This
is achieved with index–removal–index calcu-
lations (Caughley 1980) using the known
number removed in conjunction with before
and after manipulation indices.
Probably the most detailed information on
the abundance of a wild dog populations
was obtained during intensive research stud-
ies in the Pilbara region of Western Australia
(Thomson et al. 1992b). There, dingoes were
radio-collared and observed from aircraft.
Because the dingoes were living in packs,
information was obtained on the entire pack
even when only one pack member was col-
lared. Uncollared packs or individuals were
identified by comparing aerial observations
against data on dingo tracks counted during
routine ground surveys. In this way, a reli-
able tally of total population size was possi-
ble over a number of years. Such data are
difficult and expensive to obtain.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
86

6.3 Estimating agricultural and
environmental impacts
6.3.1 Agricultural impacts
Producers need to assess the type and extent
of livestock losses from different causes as a
first step in deciding how to deal with them.
Measuring the impact of wild dogs on live-
stock production has always been difficult.
Part of the problem is that, in rangeland
areas in particular, there is little intensive
husbandry of livestock. Musters are infre-
quent, stock are regularly seen only at
waters, and the remains of animals killed by
dogs are generally undetected. Often the first
indication of dog attacks is finding injured
animals at waters or during musters. In addi-
tion, livestock losses from other natural caus-
es, including reproductive failure, can rarely
be quantified, making it difficult to deduce
losses due to dogs based purely on muster
tallies. Further, information is usually
obtained from areas where some form of
wild dog control is being carried out, making
it difficult to deduce what the impact may
have been in the absence of any control
work (Section 3.1).
In earlier scientific studies, there was a ten-
dency to make deductions from dietary anal-
ysis about the likely impact that wild dogs
had on livestock (Whitehouse 1977).
However, such interpretations are generally
not reliable, because wild dogs do not
always eat the animals they kill. Neither is
the relative abundance of predators and prey
known so that a small occurrence of live-
stock in the faeces may represent a substan-
tial livestock loss if there are many wild dogs
present. In addition, wild dogs cause losses
such as wounding and mismothering which
are not reflected in stomach or scat samples
(Section 3.1; Thomson 1984a; 1992c).
Various surveys have been undertaken in an
attempt to quantify predation losses, generally
over broad regions (Section 3.1; Fleming and
Korn 1989). These have the limitations of any
survey (for example, variable response rate,
inaccurate estimations), although they can
give a largely objective indication of where
problems occur and trends over time. It is rec-
ommended that these data be collected as part
of property inspection reports by staff from
the relevant land management authority. Maps
of such data provide managers with a power-
ful tool with which to assess resource alloca-
tion to reduce predation impacts. In New
South Wales, it is a statutory requirement that
records of stock losses be provided by a land-
holder when seeking 1080 (sodium fluoroac-
etate) baits for emergency baiting. Such
reports can be included in regional maps.
‘Where there are areas with
similar environments and
production systems where wild
dogs are controlled and
uncontrolled the effectiveness
of control can be assessed.’
To obtain scientific estimates of reductions in
predation losses under a particular control
strategy, comparisons must be made
between at least two similar areas over a
number of years. One area must have no
control and the other uses the control strate-
gy (Hone 1994). This accounts for seasonal
variation in wild dog activity and avoids con-
trol strategies being erroneously deemed
successful or unsuccessful when the cause of
changes in predation is seasonal. Obviously,
it is unlikely that sheep producers would
allow wild dogs to go uncontrolled and so
there will always be an element of doubt in
assessing the success of a program. In the
extensive cattle areas of northern
Queensland, there are areas with similar cli-
mates, environments and production sys-
tems where wild dogs are controlled and
uncontrolled. In these cases, the effective-
ness of control can be assessed (Allen and
Gonzalez 1998).
Recognising predation
On an individual property scale, landholders
need to be aware of how to determine losses
due to predation. A number of factors to
look for are summarised in Box 1. This infor-
mation is derived from direct observations of
radio-collared dingoes in sheep paddocks in
Western Australia (Thomson 1984a), though
much of it is also applicable to predation on
cattle and other livestock.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 87

Bureau of Rural Sciences
88
Skinning of carcasses reveals the extent of wild dog attack and, particularly for woolly sheep, may be necessary to confirm
whether a wild dog fed on the carcass post-mortem or was the cause of death (Source: (a) P. Thomson, (b) L. Corbett).

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 89
often found caked on the hind legs. The
pattern made by blood flowing down the
legs while the sheep was still upright can
be clearly distinguished from blood or flu-
ids which may flow as a result of feeding,
decomposition, or animals feeding on a
carcass (Figure 11b). Saliva, even when
dry, can sometimes be seen on the wool of
attacked sheep.
Skinning the throat and hind legs is often
sufficient to reveal hidden damage. Tooth
punctures in the hide, subcutaneous
bleeding, bruising and tissue damage will
indicate wild dog attack (Figure 11c).
External signs of tissue damage due to
feeding or scavenging activities can be
readily confirmed in a fresh carcass by
such simple dissection. Tissue damage
caused after death will show no bruising or
bleeding as this only occurs if the animal is
bitten while still alive.
Decomposition and/or scavenger damage
can mask the cause of death in older car-
casses. Often, however, blood-stained
wool still remains (especially on the lower
legs which often dry out intact). Again,
care must be taken to ensure that decom-
position fluids are not mistaken for blood.
Depending on the carcass age, dissection
is often warranted, as bruised tissue can
still be distinguished from undamaged tis-
sue in a decomposing carcass. Provided
that the skin is still intact, simply pulling
out the wool can often reveal damage.
Puncture wounds in the throat will be
uncovered in this manner (Figure 11d).
Carcasses found (sheep aged less
than six months)
There are no predators in Australia apart
from wild dogs that are large enough to
inflict the sort of damage to adult sheep
described above. In the case of sheep
younger than about six months of age,
however, the situation is often more com-
plex. Many young lambs die from causes
other than predation, and predators are
often suspected as a result of scavenging
Carcasses found (sheep aged
more than six months)
Signs — Depending on the type of ground
and the amount of time elapsed since the
attack, tracks may be found indicating a
struggle. Both the wild dog and its prey
often leave deep prints with toes spread
out. Freshly broken vegetation, often hold-
ing tufts of wool, is sometimes found at the
site of the attack. Pieces of wool with
patches of torn skin attached, as well as
blood trails, are good indicators of preda-
tion by wild dogs. Often, however, scav-
engers obscure the tracks and other signs.
The presence of dog tracks at a carcass
does not necessarily mean predation was
the cause of death, particularly if the tracks
are more recent than the carcass.
Position of carcass — In the hotter, arid
regions, sheep dying from natural causes
usually die in shady places, sometimes
near water. A carcass found out in the
open, away from available shade can indi-
cate predation. In the same way, the age
and condition of the sheep can give a clue
to predation — if young and apparently
healthy sheep are found dead, this often
indicates predator attacks.
Carcass examination — Although wild
dogs usually attack from the rear as they
pursue their prey, they generally kill by
bites to the throat, damaging the trachea
and the major blood vessels of the neck.
Blood and puncture marks on the throat
are therefore good evidence of wild dog
predation. Blood is often found at the
mouth and nose, although care should be
taken to distinguish this from other body
fluids that drain from a decomposing car-
cass (Figure 11a).
Attacks from behind result in injury to the
sheep’s hind legs. Inexperienced wild
dogs, or those attacking without any
apparent motivation to feed, frequently
inflict considerable damage to the hind end
of the sheep. This often leads to its death
after the event. In these cases, blood is
Box 1: Recognising wild dog predation of sheep

Bureau of Rural Sciences
90
Sheep showing signs of injury should be
examined for bite marks and blood, partic-
ularly on the hind parts. As noted above,
wild dogs often bite the hindquarters,
causing easily identified injuries. Rams use
their horns to deter wild dogs from frontal
attacks and tend to suffer more rear attacks
than other sheep. A torn scrotum or some-
times even complete castration may be
found (Figure 11e).
Damage to the head or neck area of sheep
usually results in a quick death, so almost
invariably animals found with these
injuries are already dead. Any doubts
about the cause of substantial injuries can
be easily solved by post-mortem examina-
tion.
Occasionally sheep bearing scars or fresh
bite marks from wild dog attacks are discov-
ered, particularly at shearing (Figure 11f).
Care should be taken to distinguish bite
marks from shearing or wire scars. Few
sheep recover from severe wild dog-inflicted
injuries; blood loss, shock, infection and
inhibited movement are probably the most
important factors in later death (Figure 11g).
Injured lambs are rarely found in range-
land areas, as they seldom survive a wild
dog attack. In areas of prime lamb produc-
tion in eastern Australia, a number of
lambs may be injured or killed by wild
dogs while the accompanying ewes are left
unscathed.
on already dead or moribund lambs. To
verify predation, dissection must show
haemorrhage and bruising as described for
adult sheep (other methods can be used to
determine whether the lamb was healthy
and likely to have survived in the absence
of predation; Saunders et al. 1995).
A further complicating factor in relation to
lambs is that predators other than wild
dogs can be involved. It can be difficult to
distinguish between fox and wild dog pre-
dation on lambs. The size of bites and
puncture marks probably provide the most
reliable guide, dogs having much larger
and more widely spaced canine teeth.
Although foxes often tend to feed from the
heads of lambs, there are variations in the
behaviour of both individual foxes and
wild dogs that sometimes make definite
predator identification difficult.
Injured sheep found
Injured sheep are sometimes found in
areas where wild dogs are active. Sheep
that have been bitten often drift towards
the rear of a mob, and can frequently be
seen hobbling behind. They sometimes
remain close to water, although if the
injuries are severe they may be unable to
move at all.

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 91
Figure 11: Dingo predation on sheep showing: (a) ewe killed by dingoes, note blood on ground but little external damage
apparent; (b) sheep attacked at rear end, note pattern of blood stain which took place when sheep was standing; (c) skin
revealing tooth punctures, bleeding and tissue damage, clearly distinguishable from undamaged portions of the carcass; (d)
tooth punctures and bruising revealed in a decomposing carcass by pulling out neck wool; (e) ram with damaged scrotum
following dingo attack; (f) scrotum of ram showing scars from a previous dingo attack; (g) sheep severely injured by dingo
attack that would not have survived (Source: P. Thomson).
a
d
c
b
g
f
e

Bureau of Rural Sciences
92
(a) Traditional form of dog fence which is prone to breaching and expensive to construct and maintain (Source: P. Fleming);
(b) Electric fence replacing old netting fence behind (Source: P. Bird, Animal and Plant Control Commission, South
Australia); (c) Solar panel providing charge for electric fence (Source: P. Bird, Animal and Plant Control Commission, South
Australia); (d) An alternative to a full electric fence is the placement of electrified outriggers (Source: Queensland Rural
Lands Protection Board).
ab
cd

Indirect losses
Estimating losses caused by general harass-
ment and mismothering is difficult.
Mismothering is the most significant cause of
neonatal lamb loss in merino sheep but it is
difficult to distinguish from that caused by
wild dog harassment. Producers sometimes
become aware of the presence of wild dogs
in sheep paddocks by observing unusual
behaviour of sheep, such as sheep avoiding
usually favoured grazing areas, or exhibiting
panicky behaviour. Wild dogs sometimes
chase sheep through fences into waterless
areas, causing further indirect losses. Such
instances can sometimes be positively identi-
fied by tracking back to where the chase
took place.
‘Long-term branding figures
with coincident data on wild dog
control can reveal a predation
effect not apparent from
carcass counts.’
Evidence of wild dog predation of cattle may
be carcasses (rarely), lower-than-expected
numbers of calves at branding, or numbers
of injured or scarred calves or weaners at
muster. The latter may be indicative of indi-
rect production losses that are not evident
from livestock audits. For example, in the
coastal hinterland of eastern Australia, calves
injured by wild dogs seldom recover from
bites that invariably become infected and fly
blown (P. Fleming pers. obs., 1989–91). If
calves recover, they usually remain
unsaleable even after a considerable conva-
lescence. Long-term branding figures with
coincident data on wild dog control can
sometimes reveal a pattern suggesting a pre-
dation effect not apparent from carcass
counts (Allen and Gonzalez, 1998).
6.3.2 Environmental impacts
The exact nature of past and present impacts
of wild dogs on native fauna is unclear
(Sections 3.2 and 3.6). In areas where there is
a conservation goal to maintain dingoes, it
must be accepted that there will be predation
on native species. Depending on the size of
the area, and the degree of disturbance that
the environment has been subjected to, din-
goes and prey would be expected to remain
in an ecological balance. Only in situations
where a remnant population of a particularly
vulnerable prey species was at risk of extinc-
tion might a deliberate reduction of dingo
numbers be considered (Section 3.6).
Predation impact would be estimated by
observing and monitoring populations of the
prey species. In these situations, the sec-
ondary effects of any predator control cam-
paign must be considered. There is some evi-
dence, for example, that the removal of din-
goes has resulted in an increase in the num-
ber of foxes in some areas (Sections 2.10.1
and 3.6). If this occurs, these smaller preda-
tors may pose a greater threat than dingoes to
some native mammals.
6.4 Control techniques
A variety of control techniques are available
to manage the impact of wild dogs on live-
stock production. These include the famous
‘dog fences’ of eastern Australia which aim
to physically exclude dogs from the livestock
grazing areas, the laying of poison baits, as
well as specific techniques such as trapping
and shooting to remove individual animals.
In many cases, a combination of methods
may be used. Choice of control technique
depends on a number of variables, such as
the type and value of livestock being protect-
ed, the presence of, and the potential risks
to, non-target animals posed by each control
technique, the size of the area being protect-
ed, the accessibility of the terrain and the
humaneness of the technique. The manage-
ment strategies developed for a particular
region (Chapters 3 and 5) will take these fac-
tors into account, along with an assessment
of the cost-effectiveness of the various
options.
6.4.1 Exclusion fencing
Exclusion fencing remains a popular method
to prevent the incursions of wild dogs into
sheep-grazing lands. Fencing ranges from
the famous ‘barrier’ or ‘dog fences’ (Section
5.1), which aim to keep wild dogs from mov-
ing into huge sections of various States, to
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 93

Bureau of Rural Sciences
94
Figure 13: New wire-netting fences like this one are rarely constructed because of the cost. The fence is 1.8 metres high with
the bottom half constructed with rabbit-proof netting and the top with lighter, marsupial-proof netting. A 25 centimetre flap
of rabbit-proof netting is either buried or laid flat on the ground to prevent wild dogs, rabbits and macropods from digging
under the fence (Source: P. Fleming).
Figure 12: A wire-netting wild dog-proof fence in north-eastern New South Wales. The fence has a single electrified
outrigger wire and logs placed at the bottom to prevent damage by macropods (Source: P. Fleming).

shorter fences maintained to protect individ-
ual or groups of properties. Traditionally,
exclusion fences have been constructed
from wire netting, but electric fences are
now used in some areas. Netting barrier
fences are usually about 1.8 metres high,
constructed either entirely from marsupial
netting or with the bottom half rabbit-proof
netting (Figure 12). To prevent wild dogs
getting under the fence, approximately 30
centimetres of netting is turned out (and
sometimes buried) at the bottom on the wild
dog side of the fence. These fences are
expensive to construct ($8500 per kilometre;
Bird et al. 1997). Marsupial netting is no
longer manufactured and new fence designs
using 1.8 metre high prefabricated deer fenc-
ing have been developed (Figure 13) at a
cost of $5000 per kilometre for materials only
(B. Harden, unpublished data 1999).
‘The electrified
outrigger proved to be a relatively
inexpensive method of increasing
the security of older fences.’
The security of 35 kilometres of netting barrier
fencing under landholder management in
north-eastern New South Wales was exam-
ined monthly for two years (B. Harden,
unpublished data 1991–93). Fence mainte-
nance was inadequate on four of the six prop-
erties (there was a hole a wild dog could use
on average every 60 metres) and on some
properties maintenance tended to be left until
stock were killed. On average, a new hole
was made in each kilometre of fence every 18
days. Approximately one-third of holes were
made below ground level and another third
just above ground level. Almost all (93%)
were caused by animals, predominantly
macropods, echidnas (Tachyglossus aculea-
tus), wild dogs and foxes. Wild dogs regularly
moved through the fence on four properties,
although not all incursions resulted in stock
losses. Sheep were killed on three properties,
including one with a well-maintained fence.
The wild dog responsible for losses on the lat-
ter property crossed the fence on an adjoining
property then moved between properties
inside the fence, illustrating the need for
cooperation between neighbours in fence
maintenance.
Recently, effective all-electric barrier fences
have been developed in South Australia as a
cheaper alternative to traditional netting
fences (Bird et al. 1997). A number of
designs were tested and the researchers
found that simple, upright seven or eight-
wire, 975 millimetre-high electrified fences
excluded most dingoes. The most effective
design was a seven-wire upright fence, with
900 millimetre-wide wire netting placed to a
height of 400 millimetres, with the remaining
500 millimetres turned out on the ground to
form a skirt on the dingo side of the fence.
Two of the four wires above the netting were
electrified. This fence cost $3700 per kilome-
tre and excluded dingoes for the 69 months
of the trial. A cheaper alternative ($2700 per
kilometre) that prevented dingo incursions
for 46 months was a 10-wire electric fence
with the bottom 4 wires sloping to the dingo
side of the fence at an angle of 45oto the ver-
tical. Bird et al. (1997) concluded that the
maintenance cost of this fence was likely to
be less than that for the fence with the net-
ting, particularly in areas where corrosion
rates are high.
The increased security provided by adding
an electrified outrigger near ground level on
the wild dog side of existing old netting bar-
rier fencing has also been evaluated (B.
Harden, unpublished data 1992–94). An
electrified wire was added to alternate one
kilometre lengths of six kilometres of barrier
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 95
Snare trap being dug in beside a fence along which
wild dog movement is likely (Source: Queensland Rural
Lands Protection Board).

fence in north-eastern New South Wales, and
the fence was inspected and repaired
monthly for two years. The electrified wire
was run on Insultimber™ posts 300 millime-
tres from the fence and 210 millimetres
above the ground. There was an earth return
wire 50 millimetres above the ground and
the barrier fence netting was also connected
to the energiser earth. This wire spacing was
wide enough to prevent trapping (and
killing) echidnas under the electrified wire
while preventing dingoes from reaching the
bottom of the barrier fence without contact-
ing the live wire. The rate of hole formation
was lower in almost all months in the sec-
tions of electrified fence (average one hole
per ten days per kilometre) than the non-
electrified sections (one hole per six days
per kilometre). Macropods, echidnas and
foxes caused the majority of holes. In the
two years of study, no dingoes or foxes
breached the electrified sections from the
outside, whereas four holes were made by
dingoes, and five by foxes, in the non-elec-
trified sections.
The total cost of the electrified outrigger was
$900 per kilometre. This proved to be a rela-
tively inexpensive method of increasing the
security of older fences. Although the elec-
tric fencing components required little main-
tenance, the annual cost of maintaining the
barrier fence itself was high. Most of this was
the labour cost of inspecting the fence, so
the annual cost was largely a function of the
number of inspections. The annual cost of
weekly inspections was $230 per kilometre
of fence while the annual cost of monthly
inspections was only $80 per kilometre. The
‘best’ inspection interval is a trade-off
between security and cost.
One of the most important but often neglect-
ed aspects of electric fencing is proper earth-
ing. Australian soils are usually very dry and
are poor conductors, so electric fences will
not work effectively unless they are properly
earthed. For the control of wild dogs, it is
recommended that one or more earth return
wires be incorporated in the design to over-
come poor soil conductivity; dogs contacting
both the live and earth return wires simulta-
neously then receive the full shock
(Gallagher 1991).
Well-designed netting and electric barrier
fences are expensive to erect and to maintain
but offer relatively continual protection from
wild dog predation if well maintained.
Adequate maintenance is the crucial issue;
without this, the fence may do little more
than create a false sense of security.
6.4.2 Shooting
Wild dogs are seldom seen during the day
and are especially wary where they are sub-
ject to persecution by humans. Shooting is
therefore generally regarded as an oppor-
tunistic method of wild dog control (Harden
and Robertshaw 1987). Exceptions to this are
situations where hunters ‘howl up’ and then
shoot wild dogs or where a particular dog
establishes a regular pattern of visiting a par-
ticular paddock or site and can be specifical-
ly targeted. Organised wild dog ‘drives’,
where wild dogs are flushed into a line of
shooters, were often unsuccessful and are
now rarely undertaken. However, excep-
tions may occur. For example, a respondent
to a survey by Fleming in 1985 (P. Fleming,
unpublished data 1985) told of 40 men, in
response to sheep losses over a period of
months and unsuccessful trapping and poi-
soning campaigns, undertaking a dog drive
in which only one wild dog was shot. No fur-
ther sheep were killed for several months,
indicating that the control was successful
and the benefits made the effort worthwhile.
Generally, shooting is not an appropriate
technique to reduce populations of wild
dogs over extensive areas.
‘Generally, shooting is not an
appropriate technique to reduce
populations of wild dogs over
extensive areas.’
A .22 calibre rifle is suitable for the humane
destruction of wild dogs caught in traps. For
free-ranging wild dogs, a high-powered cen-
tre-fire rifle should be used (minimum .222
calibre). The head or chest should be targeted,
so that death is rapid. Less powerful weapons
such as the rimfire .22 calibre should not be
used for free-ranging wild dogs because of the
greater risk of non-lethal wounding.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
96

In the Fortescue River region of Western
Australia, the ‘Judas’ technique was used to
remove specific dingoes. Radio-collared din-
goes were regularly followed up by tracking
and observation from an aircraft (Thomson
1992a). These dingoes were generally lone
individuals that often formed associations with
other lone, uncollared dingoes in the area.
When uncollared dingoes were seen with the
Judas individuals, the animals were followed
to a resting site, and a marksman on the
ground was guided into the site by an observer
in the aircraft. The method was expensive but
extremely effective, with over 30 uncollared
dingoes being selectively shot. When the col-
lared dingoes were eventually shot as well, the
sheep paddocks had been completely cleared
of dingoes. Although effective control was
achieved, it is unlikely that this technique
would ever be economically justifiable for an
individual grazier. In arid South Australia, air-
craft are occasionally used for spotting din-
goes that have breached the dingo fence.
Ground shooters were guided to and shot
about 30 dingoes in two days on one property
following a major breach by dingoes in 1991
(P. Bird, Primary Industries and Resources,
South Australia, pers. comm. 1998).
6.4.3 Trapping
Trapping is still widely used against wild dogs
in Australia, although in most areas, the
emphasis has changed towards more specific
targeting of individual problem wild dogs,
rather than general population control. In
Western Australia for example, trapping is
mostly carried out by doggers employed by
groups of stations. Individual doggers may
cover large areas (areas of one million hectares
are not uncommon) and rely on ground bait-
ing and trapping to target wild dogs that have
not been killed during large-scale aerial baiting
operations (Section 5.1.1). Trapping tends to
be used where baiting is less effective, for
example, within sheep paddocks, where dogs
are less likely to take baits because of the
abundant and easily obtained food (P.
Thomson, unpublished data 1976–1984).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 97
Drying the surface of meat baits prior to injecting with 1080. In some areas, complete (rather than just surface) drying of
baits may reduce non-target risks (Source: L. Allen, Department of Natural Resources, Queensland).

Trapping has the disadvantage that it is
labour-intensive and requires training and
experience to be effective. Incorrect setting
of traps can be inhumane and also result in
target animals becoming trap-shy. Careful
selection of trap sites is necessary to reduce
the chance of trapping non-target animals
(Newsome et al. 1983b). The proportion of
non-target animals caught in traps varies
according to the suite of animals present in
an area and their relative abundance, the
experience of the trapper and the type of
trap used (Fleming et al. 1998).
‘Trapping is usually regarded
as an inefficient method of
population control and is more
effective against targeted
individuals.’
In much of Australia, the steel-jawed leg-
hold traps used in the past are being
replaced by more humane, padded-jawed
traps or snares (Fleming et al. 1998; Section
4.2.3). Traps are buried and usually set with
some form of decoy (odours or carcasses) to
attract the wild dog onto the trigger-plate.
McIlroy et al. (1986a) reported that trapping
was more successful than the use of ground
baits. Traps captured 56% of known wild
dogs whereas baits removed 44%. However,
because the control effort was not reported
and the methods indicate that it was unlikely
to be equivalent for trapping and poisoning,
comparisons are impossible. It could be
argued that neither technique was successful
because a large proportion of the known
wild dog population remained after both
treatments. The true degree of success of a
particular method can only be determined
from a measure of the reduction of damage
to livestock.
Trapping is usually regarded as an inefficient
method of population control and is more
effective against targeted individuals.
However, a study in the Australian Capital
Territory by Don Fletcher and Ian Faulkner
(Environment ACT, unpublished data 1998)
recorded trapping effectiveness in terms of
catch per unit of trapping effort. They found
that prior to 1993, trapping effort was largely
responsive to sheep losses by neighbouring
landowners. In 1995, in response to
increased sheep predation, trapping effort
was increased ten-fold from 1994. The num-
ber of dogs caught per 1000 trap nights
declined linearly from 1994 to 1997 and in
1998, approximately 1.5 dogs were caught
per 1000 trap nights compared to nearly 4
per 1000 trap nights in 1993.
In terms of cost-effectiveness, trapping is an
expensive control option, the majority of the
costs being for time and labour. The return
for effort of trapping is generally low, often
in the order of five wild dogs caught per
1000 trap nights (Fleming et al. 1998).
However, this does not necessarily indicate a
poor ‘success’ rate. If the five wild dogs
trapped were the last particularly damaging
individuals encroaching on a sheep grazing
area, the effort could be deemed worthwhile
because of the resultant long-term protection
from predation. Because trapping is some-
times the only practical option for removing
troublesome individual wild dogs, the costs
must be weighed against the value of the
damage caused.
6.4.4 Poisoning
Poisoning is the most cost-effective lethal
technique available to control wild dogs and
it is often the only practical means for
achieving population control in remote and
inaccessible areas.
1080 (sodium fluoroacetate)
1080 has generally replaced strychnine as
the poison used in baits for wild dogs in
Australia (Section 4.2.4 and Chapter 5). 1080
is also widely used in Australia for the con-
trol of other vertebrate pests, particularly
rabbits and foxes. It is absorbed through the
gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts and
affects the central nervous system, causing
convulsions. Its use is strictly controlled by
government regulations, which restrict the
use of the concentrated active ingredient to
trained staff of government or semi-govern-
ment agencies (for example, Rural Lands
Protection Boards in New South Wales).
Landholders are only permitted to use pre-
pared products containing 1080 and then
generally only after appropriate training.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
98

Relative to native species, dogs and foxes are
particularly sensitive to 1080, so this makes it
an appropriate toxin for these species in
terms of target specificity. The LD50 (the dose
of toxin required to kill 50% of test animals)
for dingoes is approximately 0.1 milligrams
per kilogram of body weight (McIlroy 1981).
An estimate of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram for
an LD100 (McIlroy 1981) means that a 20 kilo-
gram dingo would have to ingest six mil-
ligrams of 1080 to ensure a lethal dose. In
reality, the LD100 for wild dogs is probably
somewhat less than this, based on records of
large farm dogs that have been accidentally
poisoned and killed by eating single fox baits
containing 4.5 milligrams or sometimes three
milligrams of 1080 (P. Thomson, unpublished
data 1999).
‘Relative to native species,
dogs and foxes are particularly
sensitive to 1080.’
1080 is broken down by micro-organisms in
the bait, soil and water (Wong et al. 1991).
This detoxification is likely to vary consider-
ably between different types of bait, meth-
ods of preparation, and temperature and
other environmental conditions (Wong et al.
1991). These losses of toxin can be seen as
an advantage over the longer term, reducing
the extended hazard to domestic dogs and
other non-target species that may arise from
baits remaining toxic indefinitely. The losses
are not, however, justification for raising the
1080 content of baits above the recommend-
ed six milligrams per bait. Fleming and
Parker (1991) found that baits laid on the
surface in north-eastern New South Wales
during winter retained enough 1080 to deliv-
er a theoretical LD99 for 42 days after injec-
tion. Baits collected after 90 days still
retained low levels of 1080 although on each
sampling occasion, 10% of baits still con-
tained more than 2.0 milligrams of 1080, the
theoretical LD99 for wild dogs in eastern
Australia (Fleming and Parker 1991). Meat
baits buried during hot humid weather may
be completely decomposed and incorporat-
ed into soil within four days (P. Fleming,
unpublished data 1993). In drier areas, 1080
may persist in baits for long periods. Twigg
et al. (1999) found most surface-laid meat
baits (67%) retained 2.5 milligrams or more
of 1080 eight months after placement.
‘The losses are not justification
for raising the 1080 content above
the recommended six milligrams
per bait.’
Concern is sometimes expressed that not all
the 1080 in a bait may be available to the tar-
get animal. However, evidence from studies
on foxes reveals that this is unlikely to be a
practical issue (Saunders et al. 1995). In addi-
tion, the target animals often eat more than
one bait (Thomson 1986), thereby theoreti-
cally ingesting considerably more than the
minimum amount of 1080 required to kill
them.
A more serious concern about sub-lethal
amounts of poison in a bait stems from the
fact that 1080 is water-soluble and may be
leached from fresh meat baits by rain falling
soon after placement (McIlroy et al. 1988;
Fleming and Parker 1991). Possible losses of
1080 caused by rainfall immediately after
placement must be taken into account. Thus,
the suggested national standard 1080 content
for a ‘dog bait’ in Australia of six milligrams
(Thompson 1993) is soundly based.
Strychnine
Strychnine can still be used to poison the
jaws of traps in Western Australia, South
Australia, Queensland and New South Wales.
In all States and Territories except
Queensland and some areas of South
Australia and Western Australia, strychnine
has been phased out in baits for animal wel-
fare and non-target susceptibility reasons. It
is absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract
and acts on the central nervous system, caus-
ing violent tetanic spasms (Seawright 1989).
Strychnine is an odourless powder with a bit-
ter taste and rapid action. Despite its rapid
action, strychnine is less humane in its action
than 1080 because it causes deep reflexes,
cramps and spasms in the muscles leading to
respiratory failure and death (Hone and
Mulligan 1982). Strychnine is not a selective
poison at the dosages required to kill wild
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 99

dogs (LD50 = 0.5–1.0 milligrams per kilogram
(Hone and Mulligan 1982) and carnivorous
birds and mammals are susceptible to strych-
nine meat baits. There is also the risk of sec-
ondary poisoning (Hone and Mulligan 1982).
Cyanide
Sodium cyanide is a white powder that is
highly soluble in water; on contact with
moisture, hydrogen cyanide is released. On
inhaling hydrogen cyanide or absorbing it
through the gastrointestinal tract, a poisoned
animal has difficulty in breathing, becomes
unconscious, suffers convulsions and dies.
This process can be very rapid but death
may take up to four hours (Hone and
Mulligan 1982) and sub-lethal doses may
result in bait shyness. In the USA, cyanide is
commonly deployed for the control of
canids in a M-44®cyanide ejector and these
devices have been tested for the control of
foxes in Australia (Busana et al. 1998). When
distributed in wax capsules for foxes,
cyanide baiting caused many non-target poi-
sonings in north-eastern New South Wales
(Thompson 1994), but non-target deaths
were rarely recorded in Western Australia
during extensive trials (P. Thomson, unpub-
lished data 1992–1997). The main benefit of
cyanide over alternative poisons, especially
1080, is its faster action. This is likely to
result in a reduced incidence of multiple bait
take and hence caching or vomiting of sur-
plus baits by wild dogs, which lessens the
risk to farm dogs of accidental poisoning.
Cyanide baiting for wild dogs is not currently
legal in any State or Territory (Busana et al.
1998).
Bait materials
Three types of bait are used in wild dog con-
trol. The first two, moist meat and dried meat,
are the most commonly used and are made
on-site from meat cut from culled kangaroos
(Macropus spp.), cattle or horses. Baits are cut
to size then injected with six milligrams of
1080, except in the Australian Capital Territory
and Victoria, where 4.5 milligrams of 1080 is
used, and parts of Queensland where up to
ten milligrams of 1080 is surface-applied to
baits. In Western Australia pastoralists are also
able to make small quantities of baits by
Bureau of Rural Sciences
100
The use of helicopters allows more precise aerial baiting in rugged terrain (Source: P. Fleming).

inserting an oat grain impregnated with six
milligrams of 1080 into the meat; the 1080
leaches from the oat into the meat. Moist meat
baits are used immediately but dried meat
baits are sun-dried before use to about 40% of
their original weight.
The toxicity of moist meat baits declines
much more rapidly than dried meat baits
(McIlroy et al. 1988; Fleming and Parker
1991; Kirkpatrick 1999). The dry baits are
quite hard and therefore difficult for non-tar-
get species (birds and small carnivorous
marsupials) to eat (Calver et al. 1989).
‘The toxicity of moist meat baits
declines much more rapidly than
dried meat baits.’
The third type of bait is the manufactured
Doggone®bait. These baits contain six mil-
ligrams of 1080 and are made from a soft
meat-like substitute based on meat meal.
They also contain fat, preservatives, binding
agents and flavour enhancers.
Moist meat baits are used in the Northern
Territory (300–400 grams), Queensland (125
grams in western areas and 250 grams in
coastal areas), New South Wales (230 grams),
the Australian Capital Territory (230 grams),
South Australia (150 grams) and Victoria
(approximately 125–230 grams). Dried baits
are used in South Australia and Western
Australia (110 grams wet weight). Doggone®
baits (60 grams) are sometimes used in Victoria
and the Australian Capital Territory.
Occasionally, meat baits are dyed with tasteless
green vegetable dye to reduce the chance of
detection and removal by birds (McIlroy et al.
1986b).
Ground baiting
Ground baiting is still an important control
method used throughout the country and may
be strategic or reactive (Section 7.3.4). Ground
baiting allows for baits to be strategically
placed to maximise the chances of wild dogs
encountering them, at the same time reducing
the risks of them being taken by non-target ani-
mals. The more strategic placement means that
fewer baits are used than in aerial baiting oper-
ations.
Studies (Best et al. 1974; McIlroy et al. 1986a;
Bird 1994; Fleming 1996a) of the effectiveness
of ground baiting have revealed widely vary-
ing results. Variable results can be attributed to:
the availability of natural food (Best et al. 1974;
Thomson 1986); the removal of multiple baits
by a single wild dog (Bird 1994; Fleming,
1996a); removal of baits by non-target animals
(particularly ants, foxes and birds; Newsome et
al. 1972; Allen et al. 1989); the number of baits
available (or remaining) for the target animals
to find (Fleming 1996a); and the attractiveness
of the baits (Allen et al. 1989). There is evi-
dence that burying baits reduces the take by
most non-target animals (particularly birds)
without reducing the uptake by wild dogs
(Allen et al. 1989). Fleming (1996a) used
buried baits and reported a very low removal
by native non-target animals. For this reason,
bait mounds are used in the forests of south-
eastern New South Wales, the Australian
Capital Territory and north-eastern Victoria.
Bait mounds are bait stations comprising one
or more baits buried in a mound of earth and
often surrounded by an area of raked soil. The
raked soil allows the identification from foot-
prints and other signs of animals visiting the
station. If a baiting program is conducted with
an initial free-feeding period when unpoi-
soned baits are placed in the mound, visits by
non-target animals can be identified and only
mounds visited solely by target species refilled
with poisoned baits.
‘Burying baits reduces the
take by most non-target animals
without reducing the uptake by
wild dogs.’
The use of bait stations is becoming more
common. Replacement-baiting in bait sta-
tions was suggested by Thompson and
Fleming (1994) as a method where baits are
replaced as they are removed by foxes over
a period of ten days or so to reduce the bait-
susceptible population to near zero. Fleming
(1996a) showed replacement-baiting is a
successful method for reducing wild dog and
fox numbers in eastern New South Wales. It
is cheaper than aerial baiting and requires
less skill and experience than trapping.
Ground baiting remains a primary control
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 101

tool in many accessible areas because the
placement of baits can be better controlled.
Some doggers are reluctant to use 1080 baits
because the carcasses of baited animals are
seldom found. This means that it is more dif-
ficult to tally a definite ‘kill’ and some see
this as a lost opportunity to retrieve scalps
for bounty payments. These operators prefer
to use traps instead. This is a major practical
drawback of bounty or bonus payments, and
one that managers need to take into account.
In many instances, baiting is a more cost-
effective technique, with trapping only being
desirable to target specific individual dogs.
Aerial baiting
Aerial baiting using 1080 baits is a cost-effec-
tive method for the strategic management of
wild dogs over large areas (Thomson 1986;
Thompson and Fleming 1991). It is also an
effective means of delivering baits in remote
and inaccessible areas where ground-based
operations are impossible or impractical.
Aerial baiting began in Western Australia and
Queensland in 1946 (Tomlinson 1954).
Subsequently, considerable improvements to
the materials and operations have been made.
‘Helicopters allow more
accurate delivery of baits in
rugged mountain areas.’
Fixed-wing aircraft are the most suitable for
dropping baits in flat terrain whereas the
manoeuvrability of helicopters allows more
accurate delivery of baits in rugged mountain
areas (Thompson et al. 1990). Baits are
dropped through a chute in the aircraft on the
command of a navigator with local knowledge
of wild dog activity. Increasingly in New South
Wales and Western Australia, the aircrafts’
flight-paths are automatically logged into an
on-board global positioning system (GPS),
providing accurate records of baiting opera-
tions. A future development in Western
Australia will be the incorporation of sensors
into the bait chute so that the location of each
bait dropped will also be automatically logged.
Timing and frequency of baiting
The question of when and how often baiting
should be carried out is frequently raised but
there is no simple answer. Variables include
resources (usually dollars), value and vulner-
ability of the livestock being protected, avail-
ability of alternative prey for the wild dogs
being targetted, and season (weather, avail-
ability and distribution of water, stage of the
breeding cycle).
‘Aerial baiting is usually
repeated on an annual cycle.’
Traditionally, baiting campaigns in Western
Australia (Thomson 1986) and Queensland
were carried out in autumn (late April–May)
and spring (September–October). Autumn
coincided with the breeding activity of din-
goes when mating takes place and bitches
are in early pregnancy. Spring coincided
with the time when pups begin to move
about, removing the restrictions on move-
ments associated with denning (Thomson
1992d), and increasing the likelihood of ani-
mals encountering baits. Food demands are
also likely to be high for groups of dingoes at
this time, and in northern areas surface water
becomes more restricted, making it easier to
target the limited number of waterholes with
baits. This approach is still followed,
although baiting is often now only done in
spring in Western Australia. Baiting earlier in
the year is sometimes abandoned due to cost
and the possibility of rain reducing the life of
the baits (due to leaching of 1080). In some
areas, baiting even later in the year has been
considered, when the availability of water is
even more restricted.
In eastern Australia, aerial baiting is usually
conducted in late autumn and winter. This is
because:
• Baits distributed in autumn and winter last
longer than those distributed in spring and
summer (Saunders and Fleming 1988;
Fleming and Parker 1991), as baits may
decompose in a few days in the conditions
of high temperatures and humidity, or may
be quickly removed by ants (Fleming
1996b).
Bureau of Rural Sciences
102

• Bait take by non-target species that are
less active in cooler weather, such as
goannas (Varanus spp.), is reduced.
• The population of wild dogs is potential-
ly at its lowest prior to whelping in
spring and so a given proportional
reduction in abundance in autumn and
winter equates to a smaller remnant pop-
ulation than in spring and summer.
• In eastern New South Wales most of the
aerial baiting occurs in areas of extensive
cattle enterprises adjacent to sheep coun-
try and mustering is usually completed by
winter reducing the chances of working
dogs being baited while spring mustering.
• Lambing in north-eastern New South
Wales is most common in spring and
baiting conducted in winter prior to
lambing is sensible.
• Movements of wild dogs are traditionally
believed to be greatest in autumn and
winter when young dogs are dispersing
and mating is occurring.
Aerial baiting is usually repeated on an
annual cycle. Fleming et al. (1996) found that
indices of wild dog abundance taken prior to
annual aerial baiting in north-eastern New
South Wales were similar between years
indicating that the wild dog population had
recovered during the year following the pre-
vious baiting. In some areas, there may be
occasions when baiting in buffer areas or
baited zones (Section 6.2.1) could be missed
in some years without jeopardising livestock
(Thomson 1986). However, this could be a
risky undertaking unless detailed informa-
tion was available on how many wild dogs
were in an area, how many were breeding,
and food supply. Otherwise, the safest pre-
cautionary action is to bait the known prob-
lem areas on an annual basis.
Baiting strategies
One of the concerns raised about the appli-
cation of haphazard control efforts is that the
disruption caused by killing a few members
of a pack could lead to increased pup pro-
duction (Section 2.8). This could lead to
rapid repopulation and possibly even an
increase in dispersal from such an area.
Therefore, strategies should be developed
for baiting and other control efforts.
‘A buffer zone is more
efficient than controlling
populations less intensively
over much larger areas.’
The use of poison baiting is either strategic
or reactive (Section 7.3.4) and this affects
how it is conducted. Reactive baiting is in
response to predation incident(s) and is usu-
ally conducted at the property level and con-
tinues until the offending animal(s) are killed
and predation stops. It is essential that this
facility remains available to graziers particu-
larly so that they can respond to the occa-
sional failure of strategic programs.
It is clear from studies in various parts of
Australia that the movements of wild dogs
are usually limited. It is rare for individuals to
make long-distance forays beyond their nor-
mal range, refuting the commonly-held
notion that wild dogs regularly travel large
distances overnight to attack livestock. In
addition, there is little evidence that dingoes
or other wild dogs undertake any seasonal
migration. Under severe conditions, dispers-
ing wild dogs may congregate around a limit-
ed resource (for example, a waterhole), pos-
sibly giving rise to the notion that some form
of ‘migration’ had taken place. Wild dogs do
not engage in the annual juvenile dispersal
more common among less social canids such
as red foxes (Saunders et al. 1995), however,
individual wild dogs do occasionally dis-
perse (Thomson et al. 1992a; P. Fleming and
D. Jenkins unpublished data 1999). It follows
that wild dogs that reside within paddocks or
adjacent areas pose the greatest danger to
livestock. Control activities should therefore
be focused in these areas.
The introduction of aerial baiting enabled wild
dog control to be undertaken over large areas
adjacent to areas where livestock were grazed.
Thomson (1984b) investigated the value of
baiting within these adjacent areas (buffer
zones) to protect livestock from predation by
dingoes in Western Australia and found that it
was reduced or eliminated for two or more
years after buffer zones were established.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 103

The strategy of creating a buffer zone
(Thomson 1984b), approximately one or two
wild dog home ranges wide, adjacent to
stocked paddocks is based on the rationale
that by removing most resident wild dogs a
‘dispersal sink’ results. This effectively
encourages dispersing wild dogs to settle
rather than keep moving to reach the pad-
docks and is more efficient than to attempt
to control populations less intensively over
much larger areas. With a well-established
buffer zone, constant control work is unnec-
essary. However, monitoring and periodic
maintenance control work is needed to
avoid any substantial build-up of numbers in
the buffer zone. The buffer zone concept
forms the basis of most aerial control pro-
grams in Western Australia (Thomson 1986)
and northern New South Wales (Fleming et
al. 1996). The environments and the size of
holdings in north-eastern New South Wales
are vastly different from Western Australia
and buffer zones of two home range widths
are not practicable. Baiting is focussed at the
interface between sheep country and wild
dog country (Fleming 1996b).
In South Australia, a buffer zone of up to 35
kilometres has been recently established out-
side the Dog Fence (Animal and Plant
Control Commission 1993). The aim of the
buffer is to reduce the incursions of wild
dogs through the Dog Fence and decrease
the vigilance required to maintain the Dog
Fence in dog-proof condition.
6.4.5 Control at breeding dens
The practice of locating breeding dens
(Section 4.2.5) has diminished as a routine
seasonal activity and tends to be undertaken
opportunistically. In areas where bounties
are paid, there is sometimes a tendency for
doggers to delay targeting pregnant bitches
until pups are born and ‘collectable’, increas-
ing the tally of scalps and therefore pay-
ments received. This is a further example of
how bounty payments can influence control
work in an undesirable way.
6.4.6 Sheep-guarding dogs
In North America and some areas of Central
Europe and the Mediterranean, special dogs
have been bred to guard sheep from predators
including coyotes (Canis latrans) and wolves
(Canis lupus ssp.) (Copinger and Copinger
1978). These large dogs live in the paddocks
with sheep as part of the flock and chase off or
kill other canids that approach their flock.
In Australia, two breeds, Anatolian karabash
and maremma, have been used to protect
sheep and goat flocks from predation by wild
dogs and foxes. Sheep-guarding dogs have not
been experimentally tested in Australian condi-
tions but studies in the United States of
America (USA) have given uncertain results.
Although sheep producers with sheep-guard-
ing dogs suffered fewer predation losses to
coyotes than those without (Andelt 1992),
results are inconsistent (Green et al. 1994). In
Victoria, maremmas have been used to reduce
stock losses from 10% to 3% in eight years
since their first use (Balderstone 1992) and
have been used successfully for approximately
ten years in preventing predation by free-
roaming dogs at Livingstone Farm, Moree in
northern-central New South Wales (G. Esdaile,
University of Sydney, pers. comm. 1986;
Balderstone 1992).
6.4.7 Aversive conditioning and
toxic collars
Aversive conditioning is the process of training
a predator to avoid an activity or place by asso-
ciating the activity or place with unpleasant
experiences. Aversive conditioning of preda-
tors with lithium chloride has been the subject
of much research (Burns 1983; Gustavson et al.
1983; Tauchmann 1998), although the results
have been mixed. Cornell and Cornely (1979),
for example, successfully used lithium chloride
to deter coyotes from scavenging and begging
at camp grounds in a National Park in America
but other studies produced inconsistent results.
Currently, the use of aversive conditioning is
being trialed at Fraser Island to deter dingoes
from camping areas.
Toxic collars have been suggested and tried
for the control of coyote predation of sheep
in the USA (Connolly 1980). The collars con-
tain pouches of toxic liquid such as a solu-
tion of 1080. The technique relies on the
coyote biting the sheep at the neck, punctur-
ing the collar, and ingesting the toxin.
Scrivner and Wade (1986) in a review of field
Bureau of Rural Sciences
104

trials, concluded that the collars were found
to be an effective method when used in con-
junction with other control techniques. The
technique was most effective when a group
of collared ‘sacrificial’ animals were isolated
from other livestock. Problems experienced
included the fact that coyotes sometimes
attacked elsewhere than at the throat, collars
were damaged or lost (caught on thorns,
wire), or collars were pulled out of ideal
position on the animal.
The toxic collar technique is labour intensive,
and relies on intensive husbandry of livestock
and isolation of animals in small areas. It is
therefore unlikely to be useful against wild
dogs in rangeland areas of Australia, but it
might be feasible for use in the more intensive
grazing areas. However, the same problems as
those identified in the USA are likely to occur
in Australia. Like coyotes, wild dogs do not
always attack the throat of sheep; for example,
in a sample of 133 sheep killed by dingoes in
Western Australia, 56% had received mortal
wounds to the throat (Thomson 1984a).
Welfare concerns may well be raised about the
notion of sacrificing sheep to wild dogs, partic-
ularly if other methods are available to prevent
attacks in the first place. In addition, the use of
1080 in this way may breach current State or
Territory regulations or policy on 1080 use. At
present, there are no other obvious candidate
toxins available. Interest in toxic collars has
been shown in Queensland (L. Allen,
Queensland Department of Natural Resources,
pers. comm. 2000).
6.4.8 Livestock management
strategies to reduce or
prevent predation
The most obvious management strategy to
avoid the predation of sheep by wild dogs is
enterprise substitution, where sheep are
completely or partly replaced by cattle. This
strategy has been employed by some pro-
ducers in the sheep zone of northern
Queensland outside the current Dog Fence
(L. Allen, Queensland Department of Natural
Resources, pers. comm. 1997). This was in
part caused by changes in profitability of
sheep and cattle production and seasonal
conditions. Similar changes have occurred in
eastern New South Wales. When the margin
from sheep production becomes too low,
relatively low levels of predation may limit
profitability and the high cost of enterprise
substitution may become beneficial.
‘The most obvious management
strategy to avoid predation is
enterprise substitution.’
Enterprise substitution is not always possible
because the land may be better suited for
sheep production and the cost of replacing
sheep with cattle can be high. There is a
time-lag between setting up the cattle enter-
prise and the receipt of income, particularly
in breeding enterprises and the lack of cash-
flow may be limiting in the first phases.
Change of enterprise also raises the level of
risk because of the delayed returns expose
the producer to greater likelihood of
unfavourable seasonal conditions. Lean cat-
tle are severely discounted or unsaleable
whereas lean sheep still produce wool. The
knowledge base required to become a suc-
cessful cattle producer is not the same as that
required for successful wool or sheep meat
production. There are important emotional
consequences suffered by producers who
regard themselves as sheep graziers and
therefore find the change to cattle produc-
tion difficult. These factors must be consid-
ered before substituting cattle for sheep.
In eastern Australia, in dog-inhabited areas
where both sheep and cattle are grazed, pre-
dation of calves is rare (Fleming and Korn
1989). Graziers put cattle in paddocks close
to timbered wild dog refugia and sheep in
paddocks further away so that the cattle can
provide an internal buffer to predation.
Similarly in South Australia, sheep graziers
often run cattle in paddocks adjacent to the
Dog Fence where risks of predation are
greatest. Although this strategy has not been
formally tested, logic and circumstantial evi-
dence suggest that it reduces predation of
sheep. Other graziers run wethers in pad-
docks closer to wild dog refugia and graze
their breeding sheep further away. While this
strategy may not reduce the incidence of
predation, the economic consequences of
predation are lessened because profitability
of breeding ewe enterprises is most strongly
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 105

linked to lambing and weaning rates and
because genetic material is less likely to be
lost.
‘Most calves killed by
dingoes during these periods do
not result in economic losses
because calves cannot survive
long droughts.’
On the Barkly Tableland of the Northern
Territory, the dingo mating season coincides
with the peak in calving and calves. At this
time dingoes move around a lot and are
often seen together with calves at watering
points (Corbett 1995a). This contributes to
the deaths of many calves. Therefore, an
appropriate management option would be
to manipulate cattle herds so that fewer
calves are born in the dingo mating season.
Strategic mating of cattle has also been
shown to be more economically productive
in much of tropical Australia (Sullivan et al.
1992). This management strategy is practised
in the Alice Springs region and calf losses are
rarely recorded, probably because the peak
of the calf drop (September and October)
does not coincide with the dingo mating sea-
son. Although droughts in the Alice Springs
region are unpredictable in frequency and
severity, the effects of wild dog predation are
predictable and pastoralists can benefit from
this factor in the following three ways
(Corbett 1995a):
• In the Alice Springs region, high numbers
of dingoes are maintained because human
control methods effectively increase the
numbers of breeding dingoes and because
abundant natural food ensures the survival
of most pups. During runs of flush years,
dingoes eat mostly rabbits and rodents, but
in the middle and latter years of drought,
dingoes survive well on cattle (Figure 10a),
usually carcasses. Most calves killed by
dingoes during these periods do not result
in economic losses because calves cannot
survive long droughts. In fact, such calf
losses are probably an advantage to pas-
toralists because the mother’s chance of
surviving the drought is increased if she
has no calf to feed. Thus, in situations like
this, dingoes benefit pastoralists by help-
ing breeders survive droughts and the
management strategy is easy: relax dingo
control in droughts.
• Management decisions during the initial
periods of droughts are complex. After a
few dry months, the populations of small
native mammals and rabbits decline
before cattle begin to die. Dingoes there-
fore have no choice but to tackle large
kangaroos or kill calves, so dingo control
is necessary. If the drought breaks after a
few months, such calf losses are indeed
economic losses (Figure 10b). Since the
losses are beneficial if the drought con-
tinues, when should a pastoralist height-
en or relax dingo control? One pastoral-
ist in central Australia is reported to have
shot calves, not wild dogs, after the first
seven months of a drought, and also to
have swapped truckloads of his calves
for hay from farmers in southern
Australia. It was also reported that this
property recovered from the drought
much earlier than neighbouring proper-
ties, which suggests that predation by
dingoes and destocking both work well.
A strategic approach for drought man-
agement in northern and central
Australia is provided in RANGEPACK
(Stafford-Smith and Foran 1990).
• The presence of dingoes may also benefit
pastoralists immediately after drought.
Rabbits and small native mammals quick-
ly resurge when rain comes, and wild
dogs concentrate on them (Figure 10b). If
dingoes numbers are high due to relaxed
control effort during the drought, the
heavy predation will hold down rabbit
numbers so that they take longer (per-
haps two years) to reach their former lev-
els. This gives a pastoralist more time to
establish other forms of rabbit control
(Williams et al. 1995) before they become
a serious problem again. In effect, wild
dogs and pastoralists work in tandem this
way to control rabbits and other grass-
eating competitors of cattle.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
106

6.4.9 Biological control
At present, there are no biological control
agents suitable for use against wild dogs
(Section 4.2.7). With the goal to protect din-
goes in conservation areas in Australia, it is
unlikely that any self-disseminating means of
fertility or lethal biological control of wild
dogs would ever be sanctioned. Domestic
dogs would also require protection against
such an agent.
It is possible that with advances in molecular
biology, some form of agent could be devel-
oped that is specific to dogs, targeting hor-
mones or proteins important in the repro-
ductive process (Tyndale-Biscoe 1994).
However, this would need to be bait-deliv-
ered to avoid the problems already outlined.
There may be little practical benefit of such a
bait, unless it was target-specific and could
be used in specific areas where toxic baits
are perceived as posing too great a risk to
other fauna such as quolls (Dasyurus spp.).
6.4.10 Livestock insurance and
compensation schemes
In USA, damage compensation schemes
have been instigated for coyote damage to
sheep flocks, ungulate damage, and bear
(Ursus spp.), wolf and mountain lion (Puma
concolor) predation (Wagner et al. 1997).
Such schemes recognise the national bene-
fits of conservation of native wild animals
(such as the dingo) without farmers bearing
the costs associated with the presence of
those animals.
An alternative to spending money on control
of wild dog populations and barrier fences is
the introduction of compensation schemes.
These may be self-funding, funded by gov-
ernment agencies or by a combination of
rates and subsidies. There are risks associat-
ed with compensation schemes, as they are
reliant on the financial reserves of the
scheme and the honesty of claimants. Self-
funding schemes, with in-built checks such
as validation of claims by independent
agents, potentially overcome the problem of
dishonesty but do not address funding limits.
A self-funding compensation scheme might
best be operated like an insurance program
where annual rates (equivalent to insurance
premiums) are levied on all holdings includ-
ing government lands, and distributed to
affected landholders in response to losses
verified by an authorised person. If no claims
are made, the funds might be invested and
the rates recalculated. Farmers should be
encouraged to minimise damage by rate
reductions for predation mitigation and com-
pensation should not be open ended
(Wagner et al. 1997). The feasibility and
operation of a compensation or insurance
scheme requires investigation under the dif-
ferent agricultural systems where wild dog
predation occurs before such a scheme is
implemented.
6.5 Costs of control
There are a number of techniques for mea-
suring the costs of control programs. The
most basic in which all the costs of the con-
trol program are added together at the end of
the program is adequate for planning in
many cases. For example, the helicopter
time used for the annual aerial baiting pro-
gram in north-eastern New South Wales is
collated each year so that costs can be pro-
jected during planning and price rises
accounted for (A. Barnes, NSW Agriculture,
pers. comm. 1998). Helicopter time accounts
for approximately 50% of the total cost of
baiting (Thompson and Fleming 1991) and
so is a useful index of costs. Thompson and
Fleming (1991) also found a strong linear
relationship between the amount of meat
used and the total cost of aerial baiting in
1988. Similarly, the costs of fence mainte-
nance and erection could be estimated using
the cost of materials per kilometre, the time
required, the cost of labour and the distance
to be repaired, built or modified.
More complex evaluations of control programs
are not commonly attempted. Benefit–cost
ratios are simple estimators of the effectiveness
or the efficiency of a program (Hone 1994;
Case study 2 in Section 7.7.2). These analyses
have usually been applied to government-sub-
sidised control programs. For example, in
Victoria during the 1980s, much of the control
of wild dogs was undertaken by 21 doggers
who were employed by the State (Mitchell
1986). A benefit–cost analysis showed that the
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 107

agricultural benefits were hard to estimate
because of the externalities including the
absence of livestock production estimates from
comparable areas with unmanaged wild dog
populations. However, the control program
was considered beneficial when productivity
gains needed to break even were compared
with the productivity gains that were experi-
enced in areas where control occurred. A num-
ber of problems associated with analysis of
cost-effectiveness were raised including that
the indicator of cost-effectiveness should be
compared over years; and the measurement of
effectiveness should not be the simple calcula-
tion of the cost per wild dog killed because
trapping return for effort decreases exponen-
tially as the population declines towards zero
(Mitchell 1986).
‘Graziers commonly regard their
control activities as an insurance
policy against stock losses.’
Marginal analysis (Leftwich and Eckert 1982;
Hone 1994; Box 3 in Section 7.4) aims to
allow a producer to estimate the increased
margin (profit) from an enterprise that can be
made from different levels of input.
However, marginal analysis appears to be of
limited use for evaluating the economics of
control methods for wild dogs because of the
high variability in the nature and extent of
predation. For example, the flexible nature of
wild dog society, prey switching, and surplus
killing all affect the relationship between wild
dog abundance and livestock predation, that
is, the damage function. Fleming and Nicol
(unpublished data 1999) have evidence from
northern New South Wales that, while the
damage function is significantly linear, the
function is a poor predictor of damage at dif-
ferent densities of wild dogs. Thomson’s
(1984a) data indicate that, in Western
Australia, where sheep and wild dogs co-
occur, predation of sheep is inevitable. This is
the underlying assumption of control strate-
gies aimed at reducing wild dog abundance
and buffer zone strategies (Thomson 1984b;
Fleming 1996a). The variability of damage
makes marginal analyses of control methods
difficult (Box 3 in Section 7.4).
Another method of evaluation is to compare
the cost of control with the potential savings.
This is a comparison of costs with potential
benefits rather than achieved benefits. For
example, a survey of participants in the 1988
aerial baiting program on the Northern
Tablelands of New South Wales costed that
single operation at $152 750 (Thompson and
Fleming 1991). The cost per participant was
$540 of which $350 was subsidised by the
New South Wales Government in recogni-
tion of the control that private landowners
conducted in government lands. The costs of
the aerial control program in 1988 were
equivalent to the loss of 7.5 wethers per
landholder (Thompson and Fleming 1991)
and this was the potential benefit.
The cost per unit effort of control is another
method of estimating the cost of control.
Table 5 shows the effort expended on con-
trol of wild dogs in a number of surveys in
northern New South Wales. The Table shows
that the amount of labour expended on wild
dog control decreased after the advent and
widespread use of aerial baiting in north-
eastern New South Wales. Greater value can
be gained from such comparisons if the
potential and real benefits are calculated
simultaneously.
Most commonly, graziers regard their control
activities as an insurance policy against stock
losses. That is, if control is not exerted, dam-
age will occur and continue to occur until the
offending dog is removed, so that money
spent now is money saved later. The second
assumption underlying control programs is
that there is a positive relationship between
the abundance of wild dogs and the probabil-
ity of damage. Where buffer zones are used,
the assumption is that reducing the popula-
tion of wild dogs in the buffer will reduce the
impetus for emigration of wild dogs to the
adjacent grazing land where predation then
becomes inevitable (Thomson 1984a). If these
are the underlying assumptions, then the
strategy must be to achieve the greatest
reduction in the probability of predation for
the lowest possible cost. The cost is not open-
ended; funds for wild dog control in this case
are usually allocated on the basis of how
much a particular program costs and available
cash flows.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
108

6.6 Environmental and non-
target issues associated with
1080 baiting
6.6.1 Environmental risks
The environmental fate of 1080 has been
studied more extensively than any other ver-
tebrate pesticide, particularly in New
Zealand, where possum (Phalangeroidea)
and rabbit control accounts for approximately
70% of the world-wide use of the toxin
(Eason et al. 1998). These authors report that
sodium fluoroacetate does not bind to soil
constituents and is detoxified quickly by soil
organisms, the rate depending on soil tem-
perature and moisture. Only very small quan-
tities are absorbed by plants so there is a neg-
ligible risk of poisoning herbivores. None of
857 surface water samples collected immedi-
ately after aerial baiting programs for rabbits
or possums exceeded the acceptable (New
Zealand) concentration for drinking water of
five parts per billion. Because of very low
concentration of 1080 applied to the environ-
ment, and the rapid biodegradation of the
toxin, wild dog baiting is very unlikely to
cause environmental hazards.
6.6.2 Risks to non-target species
McIlroy (1981) tested a number of native
species potentially at risk of poisoning during
1080 baiting campaigns. On a weight-for-
weight basis, native mammals are more toler-
ant of 1080 than dogs. Birds and reptiles are
even more tolerant. In Western Australia, King
(1989) assessed the northern quoll (Dasyurus
hallucatas) as being the species most likely to
be at risk during baiting campaigns for wild
dogs. King radio-tracked a sample of northern
quolls during a wild dog baiting campaign
and found that all survived, despite condi-
tions of apparent food shortage and potential-
ly enhanced vulnerability. He concluded that
populations of northern quolls faced little risk
from wild dog baiting campaigns. This also
appears to be the case in parts of north-east-
ern New South Wales where spotted-tailed
quolls (Dasyurus maculatus) are still abun-
dant after three decades of baiting (B. Harden,
unpublished data 1999).
In eastern Australia, the spotted-tailed quoll is
considered potentially at risk during baiting
campaigns against wild dogs and foxes (Smith
et al. 1992; Belcher 1998). Adult female spot-
ted-tailed quolls weigh up to four kilograms
and males to seven kilograms, and reach maxi-
mum weight in their third year (Belcher 1998).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 109
Table 5: The effort expended for the control of wild dogs by landholders in north-eastern New South Wales. Data were
collected from members of Wild Dog Control Associations or equivalent organisations.
Year
1962a
1981
1985
1988
Major method of control
Dog-proof fencing, hunting,
trapping
Aerial baiting (fixed-wing aircraft),
fencing
Aerial baiting (fixed-wing aircraft),
fencing
Aerial baiting (helicopter), fencing
Control effort
(hours/property/year)
39.3
15.9
12.5
11.6b
Source
New England Rural
Development
Association
(undated c. 1966)
Schaefer (1981)
Saunders and Fleming
(1988)
Thompson and Fleming
(1991)
aFirst aerial baiting conducted in 1962 but widespread use did not occur until after 1965.
bControl effort for aerial baiting alone.

McIlroy (1981) estimated their 1080 LD50 at 1.85
milligrams per kilogram (95% confidence limits
of 1.28–2.68) and suggested an LD100 at 2.56
milligrams per kilogram. On that basis, a single
fresh wild dog bait (6 milligrams of 1080) con-
tains an LD50 for spotted-tailed quolls less than
3.2 kilograms, or an LD100 if less than 2.3 kilo-
grams in weight. The complete ingestion of
one fresh wild dog bait then has the potential
to kill a spotted-tailed quoll juvenile of either
sex or a small adult female. However, the toxic-
ity of fresh meat wild dog baits declines rapidly
after injection of the 1080, reducing the risk to
spotted-tailed quolls. In the Australian Capital
Territory, McIlroy et al. (1988) estimated that a
wild dog bait contained an LD50 for an aver-
age-sized (2.8 kilograms) spotted-tailed quoll
for 4–15 days after placement in winter but
only 2–4 days in summer. In a similar experi-
ment during winter in forest in north-eastern
New South Wales, Fleming and Parker (1991)
estimated the same reduction in toxicity
occurred within two days of bait placement.
1080 ingested by the mother can be trans-
ferred in the milk to suckling young. McIlroy
(1981) found that more pouch young brushtail
possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) died than
their mothers at each dose level of 1080 he
evaluated. Eight pouch young of one northern
quoll also died after their mother received a
sub-lethal dose, although the five young of a
spotted-tailed quoll survived in similar circum-
stances.
Captive spotted-tailed quolls can locate, exca-
vate and consume fresh meat and non-poi-
soned commercial fox bait buried to depths of
less than about ten centimetres (Belcher 1998;
Murray 1998). However, the extent of bait
uptake by spotted-tailed quolls during wild
canid baiting programs is unclear. In north-
eastern New South Wales, Fawcett (1994) and
Fleming (1996a) both reported that few buried
meat baits were taken by spotted-tailed quolls
during baiting programs for the control of wild
dogs. Fleming (1996a) concluded spotted-
tailed quolls were not as readily attracted to
bait stations as wild canids and appeared reluc-
tant to remove buried bait from bait stations.
In two extensive Victorian trials with buried
non-poisoned commercial fox bait, Murray
(1998) also reported low visitation rates by
spotted-tailed quolls, and was uncertain that
bait was taken by the quolls. While these
results indicate that spotted-tailed quolls may
take some baits during wild dog baiting pro-
grams, they provide little insight into the extent
and severity of any impact of baiting programs
on spotted-tailed quoll populations. That ques-
tion can only be answered by field-based
research that directly examines bait uptake and
the effect on populations.
‘It may be possible to
target wild dogs and foxes
preferentially in areas where
they co-occur with quolls.’
Smith et al. (1992) also suggested that poi-
soning programs to control wild dogs might
adversely affect the viability of critical body
weight range (CWR) mammals (35–5500
grams) by allowing mesopredator release of
fox populations (Sections 3.2 and 3.6).
However, Fleming (1996a), at sites in north-
eastern New South Wales, showed that fox
populations experienced greater impact
from a ground-based replacement-baiting
(Section 6.4.4) than did populations of wild
dogs, and that the remaining populations of
wild dogs were more abundant than those of
foxes.
The management of wild canids, in areas
where spotted-tailed quolls occur, requires
thought. Spotted-tailed quolls are likely to have
different foraging and movement patterns to
wild dogs and foxes, and may be more inde-
pendent of roads and cattle pads than wild
canids (Fleming et al. 1996; Fleming 1996b).
Consequently, it may be possible to target wild
dogs and foxes preferentially in areas where
they co-occur with quolls by using bait buried
at bait stations along roads and tracks, as these
are commonly used by wild dogs and foxes
(Harden 1985; Catling and Burt 1995).
Marks et al. (1999) are investigating the pos-
sible benefits of using the M-44®device to
distribute 1080 in a more target-specific way.
Less 1080 is required and the positioning of
the distribution device can be modified to
encourage wild dogs to trigger the device
and obtain a full dose. Both these factors
would reduce the potential for quolls to be
fatally poisoned during wild dog control.
These devices can also be used to apply
cyanide.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
110

Summary
There are four stages in a strategic manage-
ment program for wild dogs at the local and
regional level: (1) problem definition; (2)
developing a management plan; (3) imple-
menting the plan; and (4) monitoring and
evaluating progress.
Defining the problem is the first stage of
strategic management planning. This involves
identifying who has the problem with wild
dogs, what the problem is, when, where and
why it happens and how much it costs.
The costs and benefits of reducing the agri-
cultural impact of wild dog predation can
be measured in dollars. In some situations,
sufficient information is available to esti-
mate the point where the costs of undertak-
ing dog control equal the benefits. However,
each situation must be reviewed individual-
ly because interactions between wild dog
social behaviour and predation may make
conventional economic analyses inappro-
priate.
The second stage in strategic management
planning is the development of a manage-
ment plan. This requires setting manage-
ment objectives that should include interim
and long-term goals, a time frame for achiev-
ing them and indicators for measuring per-
formance. Developing a management plan
also requires the selection of appropriate
management options. Options for pest control
include local eradication, strategic manage-
ment, reactive management or no dog con-
trol. A management strategy is then devel-
oped that prescribes what will be done and
who will do it. The management strategy also
describes how the selected control techniques
will be integrated and implemented. Strategic
management of wild dogs is based on the
concept of adaptive management, in which
the management plan is flexible, responding
to measured changes in economic, environ-
mental and pest circumstances. Economic
frameworks are needed to assess the value of
alternative strategies to manage wild dogs.
In some situations, management plans that
include conservation strategies for dingoes are
required so that potentially conflicting goals
can be encompassed. A management plan
may need to integrate control and conserva-
tion techniques into a systematic program.
Consultation between stakeholders and clear
identification of the goals of management pro-
grams is critical for avoiding conflicts between
stakeholder groups with different legal obliga-
tions and objectives. Consultation and part-
nership encourages mutual ownership of a
problem and results in ongoing participation
and cooperation, group reinforcement,
improved communication and enhanced effi-
ciency and allocation of resources.
Wild dogs have large home ranges and often
traverse boundaries between lands managed
by different stakeholders. Group action is an
essential element of the implementation of
management plans. Management requires
partnerships between stakeholders if it is to be
effective. Programs must be flexible enough
to account for the different legal obligations
and different ecological, social and econom-
ic imperatives of stakeholder groups.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes
occurs at different levels throughout the
implementation and on completion of
actions. Operational monitoring, where the
costs of actions are recorded and reviewed
during the program, ensures that the man-
agement plan is executed in the most cost-
effective manner. Performance monitoring
assesses the effectiveness of the management
plan in meeting the agricultural production
or conservation objectives that were estab-
lished in the management plan. Evaluation
of data from both forms of monitoring
enables the continuing refinement of the
management plan, where necessary. Real
and hypothetical examples of the strategic
management of wild dogs in agricultural
production scenarios are presented.
It is the responsibility of government agen-
cies to encourage best practice management
and evaluation and monitoring of existing
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 111
7. Strategic approach to management

management and new technologies.
Extension services can play an important
role in the coordination of diverse stake-
holder groups when planning and imple-
menting management programs. For effec-
tive, goal-orientated management to occur,
knowledge of current best practice and new
technologies has to be available to manage-
ment groups, with extension officers having
a central role in knowledge transfer.
7.1 Strategic approach
The four steps that constitute a strategic
approach to the management of wild dogs
are: defining the problem; developing a man-
agement plan; implementing the plan; and
monitoring and evaluating progress (Figure
1). The strategic approach to pest manage-
ment incorporates adaptive management
principles recommended by Walters (1986).
In passive-adaptive management (Walters
and Holling 1990) a single strategy is select-
ed, implemented, monitored and evaluated,
and adapted according to the success or oth-
erwise of the strategy. The active-adaptive
approach puts up a number of alternative
strategies which are all implemented, moni-
tored and evaluated, and adapted according
to which strategies work best (Walters and
Holling 1990). The latter technique is more
experimental and requires standardisation of
monitoring and effort across strategies, repli-
cation of strategies and, ideally, nil-treatment
areas where no control strategy is imposed.
The challenge for managers is to use the
information in this book, and considering
how the land is being used, to develop a
strategic management plan to address the
damage caused by wild dogs. This chapter
explains how this might be achieved, and
describes its special features for wild dogs in
agricultural and conservation areas. The flow
chart in Figure 1 outlines the steps required
to follow the strategic approach and case
studies from a cattle breeding enterprise in
north Queensland and from sheep grazing
areas in north-eastern New South Wales
demonstrate how the strategic approach can
be implemented.
7.2 Defining the problem
The first stage of the strategic approach to
managing the impacts of dingoes and other
wild dogs is to define the problem at hand.
This is more complex than simply measuring
the impact in terms of predation. There are
six components of problem definition
(Figure 1) that must be identified for a strate-
gic approach. The questions asked are ‘who,
what, when, where, why and how much?’
Problem definition may be complex where
predation of livestock occurs in land adjoin-
ing conservation areas. Here, a balance is
required, so it is crucial that the problem is
adequately defined before control activities
begin.
7.2.1 Agricultural impacts
Wild dogs adversely affect agricultural enter-
prises by reducing profits through decreased
yields or increased costs (Section 3.1). The
losses associated with predation and harass-
ment of livestock by wild dogs have been
measured on occasions, as have the costs
associated with control activities (New
England Rural Development Association
c.1966; Schaefer 1981; Thomson 1984a, 1986;
Fleming and Korn 1989; Thompson and
Fleming 1991). To make wise decisions
about management it is necessary to estimate
the point at which the costs of wild dog con-
trol are equal to or are less than the benefits
of the control (that is, the break-even point).
7.2.2 Human and animal health
impacts
Wild dogs are known to be associated with
diseases of people and livestock (Section
3.3). Reducing the levels of hydatid infection
in endemic zones may be the objective of
wild dog management and the benefit–cost
ratio for this needs quantification. The pres-
ence of free-roaming dogs may place the
success of a campaign to eradicate hydatids
from domestic dogs and livestock in jeop-
ardy. In such cases, the presence of wild
dogs will need to be incorporated in the
hydatid control campaign. Similarly, eradica-
tion of rabies or other exotic diseases of
domestic dogs will rely to some extent on
the management of wild dogs.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
112

Attacks on humans by wild dogs can reduce
the number of visitors coming to popular
conservation reserves (for example, Fraser
Island). The occurrence of attacks needs
measuring so that performance objectives
can be set. Needless-to-say, zero attacks is
the usual objective.
7.2.3 Conservation
The presence of dingoes has unpriced value
(Sinden and Worrell 1979). Various tech-
niques can be used to estimate a monetary
value for unpriced values. These monetary
equivalents have not been calculated for
dingo conservation, but, where the control
of dingoes and other wild dogs in areas of
the interface of government and grazing
lands is deemed necessary, the intrinsic
(Sinden and Worrell 1979) and contingent
values (Wilks 1990) of dingoes should be
included in the cost–benefit analysis.
Before economic frameworks can be used to
assist meeting conservation goals, the value
the community places on the conservation of
the dingo, and other native species vulnera-
ble to predation by dingoes, should be esti-
mated. This would require research. The cost
and effectiveness of implementing wild dog
control techniques to protect conservation
values also needs to be assessed so that the
most cost-effective management strategies
for meeting community conservation values
can be determined. This would only be the
case if scientific data verified that controlling
wild dogs actually protected conservation
values, and that the costs of such control
equated with the contingent conservation
benefits.
7.3 Developing a management
plan
7.3.1 Identify management
objectives
The implementation of a strategic approach
to managing wild dogs requires the clear
identification of the different goals of stake-
holders. These include the general public,
local communities, welfare groups, land-
holders and government agencies. Legal
obligations differ between stakeholder
groups and so do management objectives.
The essential element in identifying objec-
tives for wild dog management is to involve
all the relevant stakeholders so that different
goals can be raised and debated and com-
promises reached.
The final management objectives are a state-
ment of planned achievements which are
usually agricultural or conservation benefits.
It is desirable that all stakeholders agree on
the final objectives. Once the objectives have
been set, they need to be defined in terms of
outcomes which can be measured by perfor-
mance criteria (Section 7.3.6).
7.3.2 Partnerships
After identifying agreed objectives for wild
dog management, the next step is to create a
genuine partnership and cooperative action
between stakeholders. The impacts of wild
dogs must be seen as a community problem
to be solved by and for the community; they
are not someone else’s problem to be solved
by the government or the next-door neigh-
bour. They are also problems of all land man-
agers upon whose land the wild dogs live.
Integrated approaches to wild dog manage-
ment are only possible through partnerships
between government and private partners
where mutual respect and inclusion prevail.
Predation of livestock is the problem of gra-
ziers and the conservation of dingoes is the
responsibility of government agencies as
proxy for the wider community. The involve-
ment of the appropriate government agen-
cies as stakeholders is crucial when control is
proposed near or on public lands.
The involvement of other interest groups such
as animal welfare groups and dingo preserva-
tion societies should be encouraged. This
involvement ensures that management prac-
tices are responsive to community attitudes
and in turn, that the wider community under-
stands the limitations that are often inherent in
the management of vertebrate wildlife.
Although complete agreement may not be
reached between groups, conflict can be
avoided by both sides being aware of the
other’s position and acknowledging their right
to hold that opinion (Pretty 1994).
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 113

The need for cooperative partnerships for
the control of wild dog predation has long
been recognised and this is reflected through
the long history of group control schemes.
Many have been formalised in legislation
and some control activities are not permitted
without evidence that control is to be under-
taken by recognised groups. Cooperative
action between land managers is an essential
strategy for effective wild dog management
because wild dogs have large home ranges
and management needs to be applied syn-
chronously to a relatively large area if it is to
be effective (Section 7.3.5). This requires the
collective action by groups of adjoining
property owners. The crucial first step is to
create a genuine partnership and coopera-
tive action by land managers, governments
and others who will benefit from the man-
agement or have some other stake in the out-
come.
‘Management needs to be
applied synchronously to a
relatively large area if it is
to be effective.’
These stakeholders come from diverse back-
grounds, and may have different responsibil-
ities and requirements that may cause con-
flict. There is more potential for conflict
between stakeholders in wild dog manage-
ment than for any other vertebrate pest
species. In many areas, wild dog–livestock
problems occur at the interface of agricultur-
al and government lands, and property own-
ers may wish to control wild dogs on the
government land. However, that may be a
conservation reserve where the conservation
authority has a responsibility to conserve
dingoes, or it may have populations of
threatened species that are at risk from wild
dog control methods. Private property own-
ers may also oppose baiting on their proper-
ties, limiting the potential for large-scale
strategic baiting programs.
In such cases, management may fail unless
acceptable, alternative control methods can be
integrated into the management plan and
deployed in these areas. Compromises are
easiest to reach when there is a clear and well-
articulated statement of each stakeholder’s
position from the beginning of the planning
process. In the case of government agencies,
policy on wild dog management should be
formulated through extensive public consulta-
tion and be articulated through clear opera-
tional guidelines to staff. In this way, each
stakeholder will understand the constraints
under which others are operating and the
actions that may be possible in any given situ-
ation. The inability of agency representatives
to meet these criteria is one contributor to seri-
ous conflict over wild dog management.
One of the major advantages of coordinated
group control is that it provides a forum
where these different interests and responsi-
bilities can be aired and compromises
reached. Other advantages of group control
are that it can:
• better integrate a range of control
methods into the management plan
• respond more effectively to wild dog
predation
• facilitate awareness and peer pressure on
those unconvinced of the need for wild
dog management
• make more effective use of resources such
as fencing materials, baits and aircraft
• provide the basis for more effective,
long-term management of wild dog pre-
dation.
All stakeholders need to be involved at all
stages from the beginning of the planning
process through to the implementation and
evaluation of the plan if they are to have
ownership of both the problem and its solu-
tion. The group may need to collect and pre-
sent information necessary to meet the leg-
islative and policy requirements of govern-
ment agencies. For example, in New South
Wales, aerial baiting can only be carried out
by a recognised group such as a Wild Dog
Control Association (WDCA). Aerial baiting
on conservation reserves requires specific
approval subject to the conditions of the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995,
and wild dogs cannot be controlled on con-
servation reserves unless National Parks and
Bureau of Rural Sciences
114

Wildlife Service policy is met. In such cir-
cumstances there are advantages in estab-
lishing the group on some formal basis to
facilitate participation by both government
and non-government participants.
‘Groups need to develop
both strategic and reactive
management plans.’
An example of where a formal approach to
planning and implementing broadscale aeri-
al baiting has generally worked well is in
north-eastern New South Wales (Thompson
and Fleming 1991). In a sense, the strategic
approach is facilitated by the regulatory
requirements of the approval process. These
force the various parties to acknowledge
their different objectives and responsibilities,
resulting in the main in an acceptance of
these differences from which grow respect,
compromise and cooperation. The process is
also assisted by the fact that most WDCAs are
decades old and have well established group
dynamics, and by increasing cooperation
between National Parks and Wildlife Service
and its neighbouring landholders on both
wild dog control and a range of other issues.
Groups need to develop both strategic and
reactive management plans (Section 7.3.4),
and to clearly define the roles and responsi-
bilities of stakeholders in the implementation
of these plans. This is particularly important
if there is to be a rapid and effective manage-
ment response to wild dog predation.
7.3.3 Government as stakeholder
Government agencies have a legitimate
interest in managing vertebrate pests, includ-
ing the impacts of wild dogs. Predation of
livestock is often associated with landhold-
ings adjacent to government lands including
State forests and national parks. In those
States and Territories where dingoes are pro-
tected, governments are involved through
their legislative responsibilities. However,
Williams (1993) cautioned that management
by government agencies should not be per-
ceived as a subsidy by landholders. Such a
perception has been shown to reduce stake-
holder participation in rabbit control. In a
small study conducted in the New England
area in New South Wales, Schaefer (1981)
showed that the cost of predation by wild
dogs was capitalised into the value of the
land. Therefore, additional subsidies in the
form of government funded pest control on
private land would be difficult to justify.
‘The State should be seen as a
good neighbour in its response to
impacts of wild dogs, yet ensure
the conservation of dingoes
where it must.’
Different government agencies within a State
or Territory may have potentially conflicting
responsibilities. This emphasises the need
for cooperation between all stakeholders.
Management of wild dogs on government
lands needs to be integrated with manage-
ment on adjoining private lands. The State
should be seen as a good neighbour in its
response to impacts of wild dogs, yet ensure
the conservation of dingoes where it must.
Government support for group management
can increase the probability of achieving
successful outcomes. Government-funded
facilitators and extension specialists can pro-
vide expertise wanted by coordinated
groups (for example, Landcare groups)
(Chamala and Mortiss 1990). A program to
develop an integrated approach to the man-
agement of wild dogs in the south-east of
New South Wales, the Australian Capital
Territory and north-eastern Victoria, which
incorporates the efforts of 14 landholder and
government bodies, was only made possible
through Commonwealth Government sup-
port which allowed the employment of a
project coordinator and trainees (P. Fleming,
D. Jenkins Australian Hydatids Control and
Epidemiology Program and H. Cathles, Yass
Rural Lands Protection Board, unpublished
data 1998).
Much of the responsibility for the regulation
of pesticides used for vertebrate pest control
is vested in government agencies. Hence,
governments should also be responsible for
ensuring appropriate training of field staff
using the pesticides.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 115

The role of extension services
The strategic approach to managing the
impacts of wild dogs incorporates the adop-
tion of a variety of control and evaluation
and monitoring techniques. Traditionally,
State and local government extension ser-
vices have been the conduit for information
transfer to landholders. Extension officers
still play an important role in assisting the
adoption of new and more effective tech-
niques by land managers.
In addition to maintaining the flow of new
information to managers, extension officers
often act as facilitators and coordinators for
activities within and between groups. Given
the central role of extension people in the
management of vertebrate pests, their con-
tinued training and education is important.
Many State government agencies (for exam-
ple, Agriculture Western Australia and the
Queensland Department of Natural
Resources) place emphasis on developing
the extension skills of their staff. These
organisations ensure that all field staff with
an advisory role receive training, either
through dedicated Technical and Further
Education Courses or regular in-service
courses. Extension training should focus on
the theory and practice of extension as well
as technical knowledge (Appendix B).
Officers should be trained in individual and
group communication skills, including prob-
lem and goal identification, conflict resolu-
tion, and negotiation. Once the objectives of
the individual or group being addressed are
identified by the advisory officer, transfer of
knowledge and the implementation of coor-
dinated management programs are more
likely.
7.3.4 Select management options
The five options for the management of wild
dogs are eradication, strategic control, reac-
tive control, conservation or no wild dog
control (Figure 1) (Braysher 1993).
There are three criteria that must be met
before eradication can be considered: (1) at
all densities, wild dogs can be killed more
quickly than they can breed; (2) there is no
immigration into the controlled area; and (3)
all wild dogs are at risk from the control
methods used (Bomford and O’Brien 1995).
Eradication of wild dogs is unlikely to be fea-
sible except at the local level or where habi-
tats have been grossly changed by agricultur-
al practices. In much of the wild dog-affect-
ed area of north-eastern New South Wales
(for example, Wongwibinda Wild Dog
Control Association area described by
Fleming (1996a), dog-proof fencing provides
a barrier against immigration. Usually, few
wild dogs breach the fence. Any wild dogs
that encroach upon the area enclosed by the
fence are pursued until they are killed.
Because wild dogs are birth pulse animals, it
is usually possible to kill the dogs inside the
fence before they breed and thus achieve
local eradication. Wild dogs have been erad-
icated from the sheep/wheat belt of south-
eastern Australia through widespread control
campaigns in the 1800s combined with
broad-scale changes to the landscape by
clearing for crops. Eradication is undesirable
where dingo conservation is desired.
Strategic control implies that sufficient
knowledge is available to take precautionary
actions to prevent livestock predation or the
spread of wild dogs from source areas into
intensive grazing areas. Reactive control is
conducted in response to predation, obser-
vations of increased abundance of wild dogs
or observations of wild dogs in sheep areas.
Strategic approaches may include reactive
control as part of the overall plan.
Management for the conservation of dingoes
is complex.
Management options
Most management of wild dogs falls into two
main categories: strategic and reactive (Box 2;
Table 6). Reactive management can also be
categorised into: one-off, where control mea-
sures are conducted in response to a specific
problem until the problem is solved; and con-
stant, where control options are conducted on
a continual basis usually because no strategy
to prevent predation has been planned. There
are a number of management options avail-
able to landholders and groups (Chapter 6). A
mechanism is required in the planning pro-
cess to help decide the best course of action.
The simplest approach to this is a decision-
making framework comprising a progressive
Bureau of Rural Sciences
116

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 117
Table 6: A decision table of strategic (S) and reactive (R) control measures for wild dogs in New South Wales. Similar constructs
can be formulated for different States and Territories incorporating appropriate policies and laws.
Control
method
Control
type
Appropriate situations Constraints
Baiting Ground Bait lines S
R
R
S
S
R
Bait
station
Bait lines
Aerial
(not
available
in all
states)
Alternative to aerial
placement during strategic
baiting
In response to stock losses
Alternative to aerial
placement during strategic
baiting. In response to
stock losses
High risk areas which
warrant more continuous
control
For agreed strategic control
in areas with a history of
losses
In response to stock losses
Generally less than two kilometres (and never
greater than five kilometres) inside public
estate area; baits average 100 metres apart.
Generally less than two kilometres (and never
greater than five kilometres) inside public
estate area; baits average 100 metres apart;
(for example, NSW limit of 50 baits per prop-
erty per day unless otherwise approved).
Must be near boundary of public estate;
1–2 baits per station
Must be near boundary of public estate;
1–2 baits per station
Helicopter only in eastern New South Wales,
fixed-wing aircraft in Western Division.
Placement less than two kilometres (and never
greater than four kilometres) from public estate
boundary; baits average 100 metres apart on
public estate areas, 25 metres elsewhere;
Ministerial approval required in NSW
Helicopter only in eastern New South Wales,
fixed-wing aircraft in Western Division. Placement
less than two kilometres (and never greater than
four kilometres) from public estate boundary; baits
average 100 metres apart on public estate areas,
25 metres elsewhere; Ministerial approval
required in NSW – rarely possible because of
time required to obtain approval
R
S
In response to stock losses
where a small number of
dogs and their routes are
known
Long-term population
reduction in small areas
Requires an experienced trapper; licence
required in some areas
Requires an experienced trapper; licence
required in some areas, labour intensive
Trapping
S At edges of sheep country Expensive to construct; continued maintenance
required
Barrier
fencing
R In response to stock losses
when other methods have
failed; may also be useful
for individual problem
dogs
Most successful when an experienced operator
is used
Shooting

series of decision points (Box 2). Normally
such an approach requires that there be only
one criterion (question) for each decision.
The criteria which apply at each decision
point are listed below. When a management
action results, the form of that action is shown
in the diagram, and the information needed to
implement the action can be found by refer-
ring back to the control methods (Section
6.4).
An alternative aid to making decisions about
the most appropriate control techniques to
exert in a particular situation is a decision
matrix (Caughley et al. 1998; Norton 1988).
To construct a decision matrix, the known
alternative control options are listed in the
first column and questions relating to techni-
cal feasibility, likely success, economic desir-
ability, environmental safety, and political
and social acceptance are listed across the
first row. Each question is answered for each
control method with a ‘yes’, ‘no’ or question
mark. The most desirable option has the
most ‘yes’ answers, provided that the
method works or is expected to work.
7.3.5 Develop management strategy
Once the management option has been decid-
ed, a strategy is needed to achieve it. Strategies
for the management of dingoes and other wild
dogs prescribe what is to be done, when it is to
be done, in what order and how often it is
done and who does what. The strategy also
prescribes how selected control techniques
will be integrated. Table 6 and Box 2 can be
used to assist in deciding what actions are
required to achieve the selected management
option (Section 7.3.4). For example, if the
selected option is strategic control with reac-
tive control when necessary, a buffer zone or
baited zone strategy may be chosen. The
buffer might be achieved primarily by an exist-
ing exclusion fencing, with seasonal ground
baiting programs to reduce abundance outside
the fence and to establish the buffer. The strate-
gy will therefore include identification of who
maintains and checks the fence to ensure that it
is dog proof, who conducts the ground baiting
programs, the frequency at which the fence is
checked and the baitings occur, and the moni-
toring regime. Reactive control might be target-
ed trapping when an incursion by wild dogs
into the area protected by the fence is detected
in the regular monitoring program. Who
undertakes the reactive trapping and who pays
is also decided beforehand and the owners of
private and public lands or their employees or
third parties such as contractors and control
associations are selected and allocated their
tasks and responsibilities.
The management strategy also defines the
size of the treatment area. Plans to manage
wild dogs must be for defined areas of land
and can be at any scale — national, State,
regional, district or property. Management
planning requires determining the right size
for a management unit. Selection of an appro-
priate size management unit will often be a
trade-off between several factors, such as:
• Risk of reinvasion if the management unit
is small — dingo home ranges may cross
property boundaries and dispersing din-
goes can travel long distances (Section
2.4) so it is often necessary to conduct
wild dog control over larger areas such as
several neighbouring properties or on
properties plus adjacent government
land.
• Economies of scale for management of
larger units — for example, some expen-
sive dog control techniques such as
exclusion fencing (Section 6.4.1) and aeri-
al baiting (Section 6.4.4) are best under-
taken over large ares because the costs to
individual properties are lessened.
• Commonality of topographic area and
community of interest — the advantages of
small community groups working together
to solve a problem in a local area (Section
7.3.2) may be lost if the chosen manage-
ment area is too large or extends beyond a
manageable topographic unit or common
community of interest. Stakeholders lose
interest if a project appears too large to
solve or is outside their area of familiarity
(that is, it is ‘someone else’s problem’).
The management strategy also defines the
timeframe for management. The timeframe is
set according to the management option(s)
chosen. For instance, reactive control can
occur immediately if the problem is current
Bureau of Rural Sciences
118

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 119
A decision-making framework comprising a progressive series of unambiguous decision points
can help landholders and groups to decide what course of action to take in response to historical
and present problems with wild dog predation. This framework may assist managers who are
able to monitor livestock regularly and may not apply in all situations. Normally this approach
requires that there be only one criterion (question) for each decision. To simplify the representa-
tion of the framework, in some cases criteria have been grouped at appropriate decision points.
To prevent ambiguity in these cases, the groupings are such that a ‘YES’ decision requires that
ALL criteria have a ‘YES’ answer. Thus a single ‘NO’ results in a ‘NO’ decision. The result at each
decision point leads to either a further decision point or to a management action. The flowchart
in Figure 14 will help users work through the framework.
Using the decision-making framework
This framework works like a botanical key. Start at 1 and work through until a ‘YES’ decision
is reached. A ‘YES’ decision requires ALL criteria within the question to be answered YES.
1. Present losses?
Criteria Stock losses are presently occurring
These are caused by wild dogs from within the property and/or adjacent
lands. (This is relevant to determine whether other agencies and neigh-
bours should be involved in management. Losses are unlikely to be
caused by wild dogs more than one home range width from such adjacent
lands [about ten kilometres in south-eastern Australia])
If NO Go to 2 (Strategic management)
If YES Go to 1a
1a. Barrier fence?
Criteria Barrier fence separates wild dogs and stock
If NO Take actions to stop stock losses (go to 3)
If YES Go to 1b
1b. Fence secure?
Criteria The fence is wild-dog proof
If NO Repair the fence THEN take action to stop losses (go to 3)
If YES Take action to stop losses (go to 3)
2. Past losses? (Strategic management)
Criteria Stock have been lost in the past two years
These are caused by wild dogs from within the property and/or adjacent
government lands. (Losses are unlikely to be caused by wild dogs more
than one home range width from such adjacent lands (say 10 kilometres in
south-eastern Australia))
If NO No further actions or decisions are necessary
If YES Go to 3
Box 2: A decision-making framework for wild dog control

Bureau of Rural Sciences
120
3. Strategic management?
Criteria Losses are of sufficient size and frequency to justify management
There is a high risk of future stock losses
Losses will be reduced by strategic management on the property and/or
adjacent lands
If NO No further actions or decisions are necessary
If YES Go to 4
4. Constant management?
Criteria Losses occur at any time throughout the year
Intermittent forms of strategic control have failed
The severity of losses justifies the high cost of continuous strategic
management
If NO Go to 5
If YES Go to 4a
4a. Erect barrier fence?
Criteria It is practical to erect a barrier fence (consider electrification)
The fence can be built on or very near to relevant boundary
The location of the fence on the Service boundary will prevent the wild
dogs responsible for losses from reaching stock
Capital funds are available to erect the fence
If NO Go to 4b
If YES Erect the fence
4b. Employ dogger?
Criteria Trapping is consistent with agency policy
Employing doggers is consistent with agency policy
A skilled and reliable dogger is available
Recurrent funds are available
If NO The problem should be rethought from 4
If YES Employ dogger
5. Wild dog movements known?
Criteria The movements of wild dogs in relation to stock losses is sufficiently
understood to effectively and efficiently deploy intermittent strategic or
reactive management
If NO Collect movement information THEN go to 6
If YES Go to 6

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 121
6. Baiting allowed?
Criteria Baiting is possible and consistent with government regulations
Baiting is consistent with agency policy
If NO Go to 8
If YES Go to 6a
6a. Ground baiting possible?
Criteria The area is accessible by a ground vehicle
Only a relatively small amount of bait is required in a small area
If NO Go to 7
If YES Spread baits from a ground vehicle
7. Aerial baiting
Criteria The area is in rugged country with steep ridges and gullies or the area is in
terrain that is difficult to access because of distance
A large quantity of bait is required over a large area
If NO Go to 8
If YES Spread baits by helicopter in mountainous terrain (for example, eastern
New South Wales). Spread baits by fixed-wing aircraft in extensive, flatter
terrain. Adhere to ministerial requirements if needed
8. Trapping allowed?
Criteria Trapping is allowed under government and agency policy
There is a skilled and reliable dogger available when required
If NO The problem should be rethought from 6
If YES Strategic trapping should be used when it is necessary, employ a dogger

Bureau of Rural Sciences
122
1
Present
losses ?
2
Past
losses ?
3
Strategic
mgmt. ?
4b
Employ
dogger?
4
Constant
mgmt. ?
4a Erect
barrier
fence?
6
Baiting
allowed?
8
Trapping
allowed?
6a
Hand
baiting
possible?
1a
Barrier
fence ?
1b
Fence
secure ?
No action
No action
RETHINK Strategic
trapping
Aerial bait
Erect barrier
fence
Strategic trapping,
bait stations
RETHINK
Move stock.
Hand bait, trap,
shoot
Repair
Hand bait
7
Aerial baiting
possible?
START
STRATEGIC
REACTIVE
YES YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO 5 Dog
movements
known?
Determine
movements
Figure 14: A decision-making framework for devising a plan of management for reducing predation of livestock by
dingoes and other wild dogs in eastern Australia.

or can be budgeted for against the contin-
gency of a future increase in predation.
Strategic management can be ongoing, regu-
lar, or occasional and may be implemented
immediately or according to a planned
schedule. Short and long-term timeframes
and achievement dates are defined in the
management strategy.
7.3.6 Define performance criteria
Performance criteria are a list of measurable
factors which will be used to determine if the
management objectives are met once the man-
agement strategy is implemented. Because
relationships between wild dog density and
the damage they cause are often complex and
variable (Box 3, Step 3), it is important that the
management plan includes a monitoring com-
ponent. Monitoring will allow the results of
strategic action to be compared with the situa-
tion preceding the action and with historical
data, or with sites with no management or
with different management strategies.
Agricultural performance criteria
Agricultural performance criteria are usually
defined in terms of reduced losses or increases
in production. For example, where calving per-
centages are consistently 85% in a region and
the dog-affected properties in question yield
80%, a performance criterion might be to
increase calving percentages to the regional
average over the next five years. In this case,
the time frame is set long enough to encompass
a range of expected seasonal conditions and
their likely effect on fecundity in the herd.
However, setting quantifiable and realistic per-
formance criteria for management is complex.
For example, the scale of the problem and the
control effort that is to be applied need consid-
eration. The large home range of wild dogs in
relation to the stocking rate and size of sheep
properties in south-eastern Australia means that
management groups rather than individuals
must decide on objectives. Conversely, large
cattle stations in central and northern
Queensland and the Northern Territory may
cover many wild dog home ranges so the scale
of an effective control program might be one
property – although immigration of dogs into a
‘sink’ property may actually result in increased
impact (Section 3.1). The performance criterion
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 123
here might be to reduce calf losses to a prede-
termined break-even level, which is set by the
area of the property, the value and cashflow of
the enterprise, and the expected level of control
per unit of control effort. Economies of scale
are important and the economics of group con-
trol are more complex than for individuals.
If conventional economic analyses cannot be
used to account for intangible values and
other complexities it may be best to provide a
management group with as much information
as possible and let them decide what change
in yield or loss should be set. The managers
then apply a level of control that experience or
intuition predicts will lead to the production
goal. Monitoring and evaluation (Section 7.6)
will allow the adaptive management process
to set new levels of control to achieve the
goals. This process allows the unpredictability
of predation and the landholders’ attitude to
risk to be included in the decision-making
process and for the plan to progress.
Conservation performance criteria
The setting of conservation performance cri-
teria is even more complex than those of
agricultural production. Unpriced valuations
are required to take into consideration the
tourism potential and inherent/contingent
value of dingoes to Australians. It is impor-
tant to assess whether a level of hybridisa-
tion is acceptable to the general public. It is
unlikely that the majority of people would
knowingly pay to visit national parks to see a
feral dog. Once such decisions are reached,
performance criteria can be set. An example
of a performance criterion for dingo conser-
vation might be that the proportion of pure
dingoes in a population in a defined area
remains above a pre-defined percentage for
the next ten years.

Bureau of Rural Sciences
124
Simple stepwise approach
Land managers who wish to determine the
optimal economic strategy for managing a
problem caused by wild dogs could use
the following stepwise approach (modi-
fied from Bomford et al. 1995).
Step 1. Desired outcomes
Identify desired outcomes and estimate a
dollar value for each of these. Where out-
comes are the protection of commodities
(Section 3.1), such as reduced wild dog
attacks on livestock, this should be reason-
ably easy. Where outcomes are difficult to
measure or intangible, such as the protec-
tion of biodiversity or threatened native
species (Section 3.6), land managers may
be obliged to estimate how much they
consider is an acceptable amount to spend
to achieve that outcome.
Step 2. Control options
List all control options and how much they
would cost to implement (Section 7.5).
Control options can be different techniques
or combinations of techniques, or different
levels or frequencies of application of tech-
niques. It is important that the options for
control are expressed as activities that a
manager can select either to do or not to do.
Step 3. Density–damage
relationships
Estimate the relationship between wild dog
density and damage for each resource dam-
aged by dogs (Figure 15). Such relationships
allow managers to estimate the likely benefit
for a given control effort. For example, if a
control program reduces the density of wild
dogs by 50%, how much will this reduce the
incidence of attacks on calves? These rela-
tionships may be complex or there may be
multiple relationships. For example, if wild
dogs switch to different prey and/or change
from hunting singly to hunting in packs, the
slope or position of the line relating density
and damage may shift at the density where
this occurs. Also, young inexperienced dogs
may inflict a different level of damage than
an equivalent density of experienced older
dogs. There is anecdotal evidence that
young dogs may be more likely to attack
livestock than older dogs which have the
skills to prey successfully on kangaroos
(Macropus spp.) (Section 3.6; Allen and
Gonzalez 1998). Surplus killing and changes
in hunting strategy will also affect the rela-
tionship.
In Figure 16 there is a significant linear rela-
tionship between wild dog density and dam-
age to cattle but there is high level of scatter
of the data points around the fitted line. This
means that, although the relationship is lin-
ear, the line is a poor predictor of the likely
damage caused by a given density of wild
dogs. The poor fit of the line is partly
because some individual dogs cause far
more damage than others (Section 3.1) and
just a few dogs may inflict high levels of
damage on some properties. This is particu-
larly true for sheep properties where surplus
killing by wild dogs occurs (Section 2.3.4). In
other areas, the density of older dogs in sta-
ble packs might be quite high and yet attacks
on calves may be minimal (Allen and
Gonzalez 2000).
7.4 Economic frameworks
Economic frameworks are needed to assist
managers in assessing the relative value of
alternative control strategies and the relative
benefits compared with other risks that must
be managed (Hone 1994). Such frameworks
require: definition of the economic problem;
data on the relative costs and benefits of differ-
ent management strategies; an understanding
of why the actions of individual land man-
agers may not lead to optimal levels of control;
and assessment of the means by which gov-
ernments might intervene to overcome identi-
fied market failures. Land managers can use
such economic frameworks to select the most
appropriate management strategy for their cir-
cumstances.
Box 3: Economic framework for wild dog management

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 125
Hence managers may need to collect and
assess their own data on dog abundance
(Section 6.2) and establish which dogs
(mature dogs with established territories, or
newly arrived young dogs) do the damage.
This information, together with records of
damage levels, will enable managers to
determine density–damage relationships for
their own circumstances.
Step 4. Control efficiency
Estimate the control efficiency of each con-
trol option. That is, how much will a given
effort using a particular control option
reduce wild dog damage? Most current con-
trol programs inherently assume that the
density–damage relationship for wild dog
predation of livestock is a simple linear func-
tion (Line C in Fig 15) and that a given con-
trol effort will result in a commensurate
reduction in wild dog abundance and dam-
age. Clearly, this is not always the case.
Step 5. Benefit–cost relationships
Use the information from Steps 1-4 to esti-
mate costs and benefits of implementing
each control option, including options
which combine more than one technique,
or the option of implementing no dog con-
trol (Table 7; Section 7.6.2). Costs will be
the cost of implementing each control
option, and should include costs of moni-
toring pests and planning. Benefits will be
the value of the reduction in damage to the
valued resource caused by implementing
control (that is the desired outcomes listed
under Step 1 above), plus any profits (for
example, profits made from tourists who
pay to look at pure dingoes if a decision is
made to conserve them).
Different pest management options will
generate a variety of benefit–cost relation-
ships. Estimates of benefits and costs can
be discounted back to net present values
(usually using a discount rate equivalent to
the interest rate the landholder pays on
Damage
Wild dog density
A
B
C
Figure 15: Some hypothetical relationships between
dog density and damage. Density–damage relationships
are highly variable for wild dogs and there may be mul-
tiple relationships. Just a few dogs might inflict high lev-
els of damage on some sheep properties but as the den-
sity of wild dogs increases, damage levels off, resulting
in line A. On some cattle properties, damage levels
might be low or nil when dogs are in low densities and
are individually hunting for small prey, but if dog num-
bers build up and they start to hunt in packs for calves,
damage might increase sharply (line B). Line C would
occur when an incremental increase in the density of
wild dogs resulted in a proportional increase in preda-
tion losses (Figure 16).
Monthly losses ($ per property)
300
350
400
250
200
150
100
50
0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Monthly density index (sign)
Cattle-only enterprises
Figure 16: The relationship between density of wild
dogs and the damage caused by wild dogs to cattle
enterprises in north-eastern New South Wales. The
index of wild dog density relied on observations of
their sign and hence losses were sometimes sustained
at ‘zero’ density. Data from Fleming and Nicol
(unpublished data 1999).

Bureau of Rural Sciences
126
financing the control operation). This will
reduce the value of costs and benefits
accruing in the distant future relative to
those accruing in the near future.
Step 6. Marginal analysis
Plot both the incremental change in the
cost of wild dog control (marginal costs of
control) and the incremental change in the
cost of damage (marginal costs of damage)
caused by wild dogs against the level of
control activity contemplated (Figure 17).
For example, marginal costs might be
changes in the cost of finding and remov-
ing an extra wild dog that occur as wild
dog density is reduced. An example of
marginal benefits could be changes to live-
stock losses that occur as wild dog density
is reduced. Where the two lines cross is
theoretically the optimal level of pest con-
trol (Hone 1994). Further increases in con-
trol activity will not cause commensurate
reductions in damage, so at higher levels
of control beyond this point, costs will
exceed savings in reduced damage.
The problem for managers is that they
often do not have good information on the
density–damage relationship, or this rela-
tionship is highly variable. This makes it
hard to estimate the position of the
marginal benefits line which in turn means
the optimal control point is hard to estab-
lish. Even if managers can make a good
guess on an optimal wild dog density to
aim for, it is not usually practical with most
control techniques to simply cut off control
efforts at some pre-determined wild dog
density. It is preferable to have a range of
control strategies ranked along the x-axis,
For example, different frequencies of trap-
ping could be put along the x-axis. The
associated cost and benefit values for
implementation would be plotted for each
strategy, so a manager could then select
which strategy (level of control) is optimal,
for example, the optimum trapping fre-
quency.
Step 7. Pay-off matrices
Construct a table listing all the control
options and their associated costs and ben-
efits (economists call this a pay-off matrix).
For example, the costs and benefits of no
dog control, ground baiting at waterholes,
and widescale aerial baiting with 1080
(sodium fluroacetate) could be compared.
Managers may wish to construct different
matrices for different conditions, such as
different stocking densities, seasonal con-
ditions, or commodity values for wool,
lambs or calves. Managers will also need to
consider timescales when constructing
these matrices: what time span is covered
and how will this affect costs and benefits?
These matrices can then be used to select
the option(s) which best meet the man-
agers’ goals. If the manager is risk averse,
the best options will be those that bring in
reasonable returns (benefits in relation to
costs) under the widest range of conditions
(that is, in most seasons and with a wide
range of commodity prices). If the manag-
er’s priority is to maximise profit, the pre-
ferred options will be those that are likely
Control effort
High
dog
density
$
Low
dog
density
Marginal cost
of control
Marginal benefits
of control
Figure 17: A marginal analysis of wild dog control.
The marginal costs are the costs of incrementally
increasing the level of control effort. The marginal
benefits are incremental changes in the level of dam-
age caused by wild dogs at different levels of control
effort. The optimal level of control is where the two
lines cross. Units on the x-axis are level of control
effort (for example, trapping frequency) not wild dog
density.

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 127
to give the highest returns on investment,
even though there may be some risk of
having no returns or even a loss if the sea-
sons and prices go badly.
Pay-off matrices can also be used by a land
manager to compare returns on investment
in pest control with returns on using the
money for some other purpose, such as
capital investments, increasing stocking
rates and pasture improvement.
Steps 1–7 complete the basic model. One
way of improving accuracy may be to
replace single estimates with a range of
possible values, and give associated proba-
bilities for each value in the range.
The model can also be made more accu-
rate by adding additional features.
Incorporation of such additional features
will make the model more complex, but
including at least some of them may be
necessary to make it accurate enough to be
useful:
• Social benefits could be included in
Step 1, such as:
- off-site effects and good neighbour
relations — (Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3).
- conservation of pure dingoes
(Sections 3.3, 4.1 and 4.4).
- animal welfare management — animal
welfare organisations would like the suf-
fering caused by harvesting or control
techniques considered as a cost that is
taken into account in vertebrate pest
management decisions (Choquenot et
al. 1996: Section 4.2). Alternatively, wild
dog control can alleviate the suffering
caused to prey, reducing the welfare
costs to the community.
• Risk management for spread of disease
by wild dogs could also be included in
Step 1.
• Effects of government intervention
could affect value of benefits (in Step
1) or costs (in Step 2).
• Indirect effects of pest control (for exam-
ple, controlling wild dogs may lead to an
increase in kangaroo numbers) could be
included as interaction effects in Step 3.
• The form in which benefits come may
be significant to a manager (Step 5).
For example, cash ‘bonuses’ for dingo
scalps may be more attractive as imme-
diate cash for spending, than future
money from increased lambing per-
centages, which may be committed in
advance to servicing debts or meeting
farm running costs.
Ideally, land managers could use this step-
wise approach to optimise the control effort,
but often capital is constrained by compet-
ing demands and sub-optimal amounts are
available. The processes outlined are sensi-
ble and relatively simple ways of balancing
competing demands. We recognise that
managers will have incomplete knowledge
of the information necessary to fully com-
plete many of these steps. Some projects
funded by the Vertebrate Pest Program and
the National Feral Animal Control Program
in the Bureau of Rural Sciences aim to col-
lect some of these data. Even where infor-
mation is incomplete, the exercise of
attempting to complete the process, and
recording the assumptions and best guess
estimates that are made, may prove a useful
aid to decision making for wild dog and
dingo management.
Even where sufficient information exists to
enable simple marginal or other economic
analyses of different dog control options,
valuing the reductions in yield caused by
wild dog predation is not straightforward.
For example, the economic cost of preda-
tion of a merino ewe can be simply esti-
mated by the potential value of its wool
and its replacement cost, yet valuing the
contingent loss of its cumulative genetic
value is not simple. This is particularly so
when the sheep involved are from a stud
or commercial breeding enterprise. More
complex economic models are needed to
include the intangibles of predation on
sheep production.
By contrasting the marginal ratios of different
approaches on a common measure of bene-
fit, for example, decreasing loss of biodiver-
sity, or increasing farm income, break even
points can be established and the allocation
of resources can be optimised. In such cases,

Bureau of Rural Sciences
128
managers have to prioritise where control
will be conducted. Accurate information to
support many of the decisions needed for
this process will almost always be absent and
managers will often have to make ‘best
guess’ estimates. However, the process will
give defensible decisions especially if they
are empirically tested by monitoring the out-
comes. For example, sheep graziers might
need to estimate the losses caused by wild
dogs, both immediately, through predation
on livestock, and longer term, through
reducing reproductive success and genetic
advancement of the flock or herd. In this
case, future losses would need to be dis-
counted at some appropriate rate (commonly
5% per year). The costs of control would also
need to be assessed, examining different
control strategies to see which are cheapest
and most effective. Alternative options and
opportunity costs would also need to be
examined.
More complex models
A more complex analysis of the economics
of wild dog management is possible
through linear programming. In linear pro-
gramming, the underlying function (in our
case the relationship between damage and
pest density) and its constraints are
assumed or known to be linear
(Luenberger 1984). By fitting known values
to the function and the constraints, and
solving the equations, control is optimised
in terms of cost. For example, in a regional
linear programming model of serrated tus-
sock (Nassella trichotoma) control in New
South Wales, Jones and Vere (1998) max-
imised the regional gross margin of control
of this weed within the constraints of soil
fertility and rainfall. Their model incorpo-
rated a linear relationship between the den-
sity of serrated tussock and the reduction in
wool production and carrying capacity,
and subject to an array of rainfall regimes
and soil fertilities. Linear programming is
not applicable if the functions are not linear
and is limited to short-term evaluations.
This process is probably most useful at the
policy-making and program-funding level.
A problem with marginal analysis and with
linear programming is that they are simplis-
tic and do not include pest population
dynamics. The inclusion of population
dynamics in weed control models has
shown that control should be instigated at
lower thresholds than predicted by the sim-
ple threshold models often used in marginal
analyses (Bauer and Mortensen 1992).
Stochastic dynamic programming (SDP)
models attempt to link biological and eco-
nomic data in such a way that accounts for
the variability of the biological components.
One advantage of these models is that the
population dynamics of the subject pest can
be incorporated. Without these compo-
nents, models underestimate the long-term
costs of not taking control action. Ignoring
the rate of increase of a population results
in a lower level of instantaneous control
than is optimal. This decreases the long-
term economic benefits of control and
results in greater long-term costs of control
(R. Jones, senior research economist, NSW
Agriculture, pers. comm., 1999). As with lin-
ear programming, SDP is complex and best
used by experts to evaluate management
strategies and to aid policy and funding
decisions. An example of SDP is a CD-ROM
rabbit control simulation model which con-
siders interactions between rabbit numbers,
pasture production and sheep flock perfor-
mance accounting for climatic stochasticity
(Bureau of Rural Sciences/Centre for
Agricultural and Regional Economics 1999).
The model is based on a New South Wales
Tablelands grazing system and takes into
account uncertainty in the wool production
system, rabbit population dynamics and the
effectiveness of rabbit control options.
Numerous simulations can be run to show
the expected or average improvement in
farm gross margin resulting from rabbit con-
trol across a range of environmental condi-
tions. Rabbit control will not always be
profitable because competition with sheep
for pasture will not always be a problem. A
SDP model for wild dog management
would have greater uncertainty than that for
rabbit control because of the much higher
variability in density–damage relationships
for wild dog impact on sheep production.

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 129
7.5 Implementation
When the management plan is completed,
implementation can start. It is usually desirable
to involve as many stakeholders as possible in
the implementation stage. The value of the
group approach in the implementation of a
pest management plan (Section 7.3.2) has
been discussed in detail in the earlier guide-
lines for managing rabbits (Williams et al.
1995) and feral pigs (Choquenot et al. 1996).
Maintaining commitment and enthusiasm
among all stakeholders is essential. Good com-
munication between all participants through-
out the implementation of the management
plan will ensure that difficulties are identified
and addressed early, and if necessary support
or peer group pressure can be provided if
some people have problems implementing
their part of the plan (Section 7.3.2). Rapid
communication of the results of the monitoring
of performance indicators is also important so
people see the rewards of their efforts which
will motivate them to continue. If monitoring
shows that expected benefits are not occurring
this also needs to be communicated rapidly so
the stakeholders can decide if the objectives or
the management plan need to be modified
(Figure 1).
7.6 Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring enables the continuing refinement
of a control strategy in relation to the set objec-
tives. It is important to distinguish between
efficiency (operational objectives) and effec-
tiveness (performance objectives) as manage-
ment can be efficient but ineffectual. For exam-
ple, 75% of wild dogs might be killed efficient-
ly for little cost, but this strategy would fail if
there was no concurrent reduction in preda-
tion or increase in production.
A management plan must have operational
objectives (for example, ‘was the planned
management action carried out efficiently?’)
and performance objectives (‘did the manage-
ment action achieve the resource protection
goals used to justify management action?’; that
is, ‘were the performance criteria met?’).
7.6.1 Operational monitoring
Records need to be maintained describing
what was done, how many wild dogs were
killed or what proportional reduction of abun-
dance index was achieved (Section 6.2),
where, for how long, by whom, and at what
cost. Measurements need to be taken and
reported routinely. Reports should include
details of number of properties treated per
year, money allocated, total number of wild
dogs killed, number of wild dogs killed per
unit effort, number of wild dogs remaining, the
cost per unit reduction and mapping of data.
The results of operational monitoring will be
used to assess the efficiency of the manage-
ment strategy. They will be useful for answer-
ing such questions as:
• Were the best people chosen to under-
take the fieldwork?
• Were the selected techniques applied at
the best times and did they reduce wild
dog densities to desired levels?
• What were the costs? Were there cost
overruns? Can budgets be reallocated to
reduce costs?
7.6.2 Performance monitoring
Performance monitoring measures the effect of
management of the resources to be protected,
by comparing the outcome of management
against performance criteria. For example,
‘how well have we achieved our goals?; or,
‘have we increased our calving percentage to
the regional average?’. To answer these types
of question, production records need to be
kept and compared with the values preceding
implementation of the management plan. Most
performance measures can be assessed by
landowners or pest managers. Measures of
more complex ecological relationships may
require interpretation by experienced
researchers. Performance monitoring usually
requires a long-term perspective, and some
experimental and scientific rigour for results to
be interpreted and transferable.
The results of the performance monitoring
will be used to assess the effectiveness of the
management strategy against the objectives
defined in the management plan. They will
be useful for answering such questions as:
• Were some or all of the objectives met?
Why or why not?

Bureau of Rural Sciences
130
• Were the objectives met within the time-
frame? Should the timeframe be changed?
• Should the problem definition or manage-
ment objectives be changed (Figure 1)?
7.7 Case studies of the strategic
planning process
These case studies are to demonstrate strate-
gic planning methods. The first case study is
from an extensive cattle enterprise in north
Queensland. The authors were unable to
find suitable data to provide a case study for
This case study draws on real data from an
extensive cattle enterprise in north
Queensland (from Allen et al. (1997); Allen
and Gonzalez (1998)). Although the enter-
prise did not undertake a formal planning
process, the data are used here to demon-
strate the strategic approach to wild dog
management. The specific objectives and
assessments against those objectives were
hypothetical but the responses to control
are real.
The site
The site is a 52 000 hectare property in the
wet–dry tropics near Cape York in northern
Queensland which has an annual rainfall of
about 900 millimetres. The property is an
extensive breeding cattle enterprise. Feral
horses, kangaroos and wallabies
(Macropus spp.) have been controlled on
the property.
Defining the problem
From 1968 to 1988, branding percentages
on the property were between 42% and
70% and of these, the percentage of calves
that had been bitten by wild dogs ranged
from 8% to 19%. The property was baited at
least annually with strychnine baits laid
around waterholes from 1968 to 1988. Over
that time, because of pasture improvement
and better management, there was a gradu-
al increase in the number of cattle and in
the number of calves branded. The brand-
ing percentage and the percentage of
calves bitten by wild dogs both remained
fairly constant but the potential branding
percentage for the region was not being
reached.
Objectives
Although specific production goals were
not set, the general objectives over the 20
years prior to 1988 had been to maximise
branding percentage and income. For the
purpose of this example, the specific goals
from 1988 were to:
• increase the average branding percent-
age to the potential levels for the
region (80%)
• reduce the number of calves bitten by
wild dogs to below 2%.
Management options
There were three options in 1988:
• The ‘no dog control’ (Section 7.3.4)
option was not appealing because bit-
ten calves were strong evidence that
predation by wild dogs was significant.
• Although there had been a steady
increase in the number of calves brand-
ed during the existing strychnine
baiting program based at waterholes,
7.7.1 Case study 1 — Extensive cattle enterprise in north Queensland
the sheep industry. Instead, a hypothetical
case study of a benefit–cost analysis has
been provided.
In the cattle case study, there has been an
ongoing problem of predation by wild dogs
and below average livestock production. A
major change from individual-based control
programs to coordinated group activities
occurred, and records of production and
losses before and after the change enables
monitoring of the progress towards objec-
tives. The program has run over more than
ten years.

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 131
improved general management had
increased the number of breeders
being run. This confounded the mea-
surement of the effectiveness of the
baiting program. However, as there
had been a steady increase in calf
turnoff, the baiting program might
have been at least partly responsible.
• In 1988, cooperative aerial baiting
using 1080 baits was being encour-
aged by neighbours and government
inspectors in the region and else-
where. This alternative was attractive
because inaccessible areas of the prop-
erty could be baited and being
involved in a joint community program
was regarded as a responsibility to the
community. Although aerial baiting
was expensive, the spectacular
increases in returns reported on the
bush telegraph would more than cover
the expense.
Implementation
In cooperation with neighbouring cattle
stations, approximately 50 000 square kilo-
metres were baited in 1988 using a fixed-
wing aircraft and 1080 meat baits. The
problem and its solution were ‘owned’ by
the landholders involved and the govern-
ment’s contribution was through the
Regional Inspector (from the then Rural
Lands Protection Board) who was respon-
sible for adding poison to the baits and
advising and coordinating the group.
Monitoring, evaluation and
outcomes
Records of rainfall, calving percentages (at
branding), bites to calves by wild dogs and
wild dog control activities have been kept
from 1968 to the present. At the 1989
branding, the number of bitten calves
dropped to zero and the highest-ever
branding percentage to date (approxi-
mately 75%) was achieved. In the eight
years following the first aerial baiting,
branding percentages have averaged
75.3% (s.d. = 1.2%) and have not been
below 70%. The percentage of bitten cattle
was less than 1.2%. If the goals had been to
reach the potential branding percentage
for the region, the program has fallen
short; however, large increases have been
achieved and 320 additional calves have
been produced per year. The baiting pro-
gram did achieve the objective of reducing
the percentage of bitten calves to below
2%.
The stocking rate of the property and the
effect of greater calf survival will need to
be assessed over the next few years to
determine if the extra calves are drawing
on the pasture capital of the station.
Monitoring and evaluation should contin-
ue and alternative strategies be planned in
case there is a trend towards decreasing
effectiveness.
Authors’ comment
Although there was no equivalent area
where wild dogs were not controlled
against which to compare these results, the
circumstantial evidence for the success of
the aerial baiting strategy was strong and
certainly strong enough to convince most
landholders of its value. Conversely, studies
undertaken in other smaller areas of central
Queensland (800 to 9000 square kilometres
baited) have shown that, although wild dog
numbers were reduced, there was no con-
current reduction in calf losses and in some
cases calf losses increased (Allen and
Gonzalez 1998). In response to those find-
ings, the manager of one of the studied
properties in central Queensland has not
baited since 1997 (Allen and Gonzalez
2000). Scale differences, behavioural and
age structure changes in baited populations
of wild dogs, differences in repopulation,
the level of population reduction or combi-
nations of these (Allen and Gonzalez 1998)
may explain the contrasting results between
the northern property and those where
smaller areas were baited. Allen and
Gonzalez (2000) recommended that for full
value to accrue from aerial baiting, coopera-
tive projects covering large contiguous
areas are preferable to smaller, single or
part-property efforts.

Bureau of Rural Sciences
132
To undertake a benefit–cost analysis, data on
the value of production, cost of wild dog con-
trol and control effectiveness are required. An
example of a benefit–cost analysis for wild dog
control on sheep properties is shown in Table
7. In the table, hypothetical values are given
for production parameters, wild dog control
costs and sheep losses for two wild dog con-
trol strategies:
• Wild Dog Control Strategy 1: trapping,
reactive ground baiting, fence mainte-
nance and opportunistic shooting; no
baited zone.
• Wild Dog Control Strategy 2: baited
zone (applied by aerial baiting) as
well as fence maintenance, oppor-
tunistic shooting and reactive ground
baiting.
The benefit of these two strategies in
reducing wild dog impact is determined by
comparing them against two hypothetical
percentage stock losses (16% and 33%)
when no wild dog control was applied.
Process
In this hypothetical case, it was assumed that
the relationship between damage and the
density of wild dogs is linear and hence the
relationship between benefit–cost ratios and
sheep losses is also linear (Figure 15, Line C).
To estimate the break-even points (the
points at which the benefits equalled the
costs), linear functions were drawn for bene-
fit–cost ratios at different percentage losses
for the two strategies (Figure 18). Using the
equations of the lines, the break-even points
were estimated by determining when the
benefit–cost ratio (y-axis) equalled one.
In general, it is better to use long-term
average losses than single year figures
because of the large variability in preda-
tion that is experienced between years.
Analysis
The hypothetical benefit–cost ratios were
better for Strategy 2 than Strategy 1 (Table 7,
Figure 18) because the percentage predation
experienced and the relative costs were
lower in Strategy 2. The control effort in both
strategies was beneficial when compared
with the hypothetical percentage losses
where no control effort was expended. The
benefit was greater when the imposition of
the baiting zone was the primary control
strategy. For Strategy 1 (no baited zone),
break-even would have been achieved if
expected losses were 9.6%, whereas Strategy
2 (with baited zone) was beneficial if expect-
ed losses were above 4.0%. Aerial baiting is
also likely to have a greater impact on wild
dog populations, but targeted baiting/trap-
ping may be more effective in removing indi-
vidual dogs which are causing problems in
localised areas.
The benefit–cost analysis is clearly depen-
dent on the per head value of the livestock
and the potential activity — that is, the fre-
quency of attacks and number of sheep
maimed or killed during attacks — of indi-
vidual dogs that may be killed as a result of
control effort. The latter is difficult to predict
because relationships between wild dog
densities and livestock predation levels are
highly variable (Box 2, Step 3) and depen-
dent on a wide range of factors including
availability of alternative food, social struc-
ture of dogs and activity of individual dogs.
7.7.2 Case study 2 — Hypothetical case study of benefit–cost analysis for sheep
properties
Benefit–cost ratio
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
51015
Sheep losses (%)
20 25 30 35
1
0
-1
10
Strategy 2
Strategy 1
Figure 18: An example of benefit–cost ratio analyses
showing the benefit–cost of effort to control wild
dogs including a baited zone (Strategy 2 in Table 7)
and control effort without a baited zone (Strategy 1 in
Table 7) for sheep graziers in north-eastern New
South Wales. Benefit–cost ratios below 1
(dotted/dashed line) are uneconomic.

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 133
Table 7: Hypothetical benefit–cost comparison of two wild dog control strategies using two sets of sheep productivity
data. (Hypothetical annual percentage losses experienced in the absence of control extrapolated from Thomson (1984a);
sheep production and control effort figures for Strategy 1 extrapolated from NERDA (undated c. 1966) and those for
Strategy 2 extrapolated from Thompson and Fleming (1991) and Fleming (1996b); average hourly wages are from
Consumer Price Index figures, Australian Tax Office (unpublished data 1996).
Parameter
Mean sheep numbers
(head per property)
Greasy fleece weight
(kilograms per head)
Value of sheep
($ per head)
Annual mean sheep killed
by wild dogs
(head per property)
Annual control effort
(hours per property)
Cost of predation
($ per property)
Cost of control
($ per property)
Wild dog
control
Strategy 11
1030
3.7
42.4
25.6
185.6
1085
2975
Wild dog
control
Strategy 22
1030
3.7
42.4
11.2
100
475
1790
No control
(16% losses)
1030
3.7
42.4
165
0
6996
0
No control
(33% losses)
1030
3.7
42.4
340.4
0
14432
0
Benefit-cost ratios3
Control
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
@16% annual losses
1.46:1
2.87:1
@33% annual losses
3.29:1
6.15:1
1Strategy 1: Control with no buffer-zone
2Strategy 2: Control with a buffer-zone
3Benefit–cost ratio is calculated by dividing the benefits (cost of predation when there is no control minus
cost of predation under a particular control strategy) by the
total costs
of the control strategy. The
total
costs
of the control strategy are the cost of control effort plus any predation costs that are still incurred
despite the control effort.

Summary
Although there is much knowledge about the
ecology, behaviour and effects of predation
by dingoes and other wild dogs, some topics
require further research to enable best prac-
tice management to be implemented. There
are also knowledge deficits relating to the
conservation of dingoes, the effects of con-
trol programs on populations of non-target
animals and the interactions between wild
dogs and feral cats, foxes and native carni-
vores. These knowledge deficiencies are not
listed in priority order.
8.1 Assess relationship between
wild dog abundance and
predation of cattle
Deficiency
A poor understanding of the relationship
between wild dog density and the predation
of cattle in extensive cattle areas.
Developments required
Measurement of predation of cattle and wild
dog density is required in different regions.
This can be done during normal wild dog
control programs. As for sheep enterprises in
the eastern highlands, the costs of the ‘no
dog control’ option requires evaluation
(Section 7.3.4).
Consequences
If consistent relationships exist between wild
dog density and predation of cattle, marginal
analyses have more credibility and become
very useful in best practice management.
Negative relationships between cattle preda-
tion levels and wild dog density would indi-
cate that control of wild dog populations was
disadvantageous and should be discontin-
ued and alternative strategies used, or that
control should be coordinated over larger
areas.
8.2 Assess relative effectiveness
and efficacy of baiting
strategies
Deficiency
The relationship between the cost of control
(particularly aerial and ground baiting) and
the impact of wild dog predation on the
profitability of livestock (particularly sheep)
in the eastern highlands is unknown. This
knowledge is essential for decisions about
the continuing expenditure on wild dog con-
trol, dingo conservation and the suitability of
some lands for grazing enterprises. If possi-
ble, areas where no wild dog control is
exerted should be incorporated in the
assessments so that the costs of the ‘no dog
control’ (Section 7.3.4) option can be evalu-
ated and benefit–cost ratios of different con-
trol programs can be compared against no
action.
Developments required
Experiments to evaluate the relative costs
and benefits of the various methods of wild
dog control.
Consequences
Improved management decisions relating to
wild dog control, conservation and the prof-
itability of grazing enterprises. If the relation-
ships between wild dog density and preda-
tion are tenuous or highly variable, the con-
tinued use of all control strategies that
reduce dog abundance in sheep areas are
justified provided they fall within budget
allocations.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 135
8. Deficiencies in knowledge and practice

8.3 Assess effect of Rabbit
Calicivirus Disease on dingo
predation of livestock
Deficiency
The introduction of rabbit calicivirus has had
a varied impact on rabbit numbers with the
greatest reductions being in arid and semi-
arid areas (rainfall less than 300 millimetres).
The effect of reduced abundance of rabbits
on wild dog predation of cattle and native
animals and on wild dog population abun-
dance is poorly known.
Developments required
The interaction of rabbit calicivirus on rabbit
populations and the subsequent effects on
wild dog predation of cattle and native ani-
mals requires research.
Consequences
Prey abundance may be an important indica-
tor of the probability of wild dog predation
of livestock. If so, understanding of preda-
tor–prey relationships and the effects of
Rabbit Calicivirus Disease on rabbit popula-
tions is essential.
8.4 Investigate feasibility of
compensation schemes for
wild dog predation
Deficiency
A self-funding insurance or compensation
scheme has been suggested to reimburse
landholders for livestock losses. Such
schemes could be a substitute for control or
an adjunct to reduced levels of control. The
feasibility and function of such schemes has
not been investigated.
Developments required
The feasibility and operation of self-funded
compensation schemes require investigation
under different agricultural systems where
wild dogs occur.
Consequences
Determination of the likely success of com-
pensation or insurance schemes as an alter-
native management strategy for wild dogs.
8.5 Train vertebrate pest control
operators and managers
Deficiencies
There is a need for training packages to
inform field operatives and managers of the
strategic approach to wild dog management
and the conservation issues relating to
hybridisation.
Developments required
The information contained in this book pro-
vides a starting point for the development of
training packages for field operatives and
managers. These should be continuously
updated to account for changes in legislation
and new research findings.
Consequences
Soundly-based management will be imple-
mented and the results of new research will
be incorporated into management plans.
8.6 Improve public awareness of
agricultural production,
conservation and animal
welfare issues for wild dog
control
Deficiency
Public perceptions of vertebrate pest control
programs are often based on incorrect
premises or worst-case scenarios. Many peo-
ple are not fully aware of the range of agri-
cultural and conservation reasons for wild
dog control. There is also misinformation
about the use and safety of poisons, and in
particular the characteristics of 1080 (sodium
fluoroacetate) (Sections 4.2.4 and 6.4.4) that
make it the poison of choice for controlling
wild dogs. Although considered a humane
Bureau of Rural Sciences
136

poison by many researchers and managers,
there is a perception by many in the wider
community that 1080 causes painful deaths.
There is increasing community interest in the
need for, and humaneness of, control tech-
niques used on pest animals. These issues
require extension to the broader community.
Developments required
Education and media programs to extend
information on the welfare issues of wild
dog management. Include animal welfare
issues associated with wild dog control in
school curricula.
Consequences
More techniques for management of wild
dogs that include non-lethal strategies will
be available.
Better informed public debate about the
conservation, livestock production and ani-
mal welfare issues relating to the manage-
ment of wild dogs.
8.7 Develop species-specific and
more humane control
techniques for wild dogs
Deficiency
The increasing interest of the wider commu-
nity in animal welfare requires that more
humane methods of control for pest animals
be continually investigated. For example, the
use of strychnine on trap jaws is the presently
accepted and recommended method for min-
imising the suffering of dogs held in traps.
Strychnine causes a quick yet painful death.
Developments required
Development and monitoring of new and
improved techniques to minimise or eliminate
the potentially adverse effects of control mea-
sures on the welfare of wild dogs and non-tar-
get animals is needed. For example, a fast-act-
ing more humane poison for use as a substitute
for strychnine on trap jaws requires investiga-
tion. The economic viability of new techniques
will need to be assessed.
The use of deterents to minimise interactions
between wild dogs and people is untested.
Alternative management tools such as live-
stock guarding dogs and toxic collars have
been tried in other countries but their applica-
tion and benefit–cost analyses for Australian
conditions are unknown.
Consequences
Ongoing assessment and improvement of ani-
mal welfare aspects of wild dog control. The
most humane methods of control will be used
for managing wild dogs and the welfare of
non-target animals will not be compromised
during control programs.
8.8 Assess economic importance
of hydatids in wild dogs
Deficiency
The relationship between wild dog popula-
tions and the prevalence of hydatidosis
(causal agent Echinococcus granulosus) in
livestock has not been fully investigated. At
local levels, it is known that hydatidosis in
cattle is sometimes associated with grazing
lands adjacent to or within country inhabited
by wild dogs; however full epidemiological
studies have not been completed. The eco-
nomic importance of hydatid infection in
livestock remains unclear and strategies to
prevent or reduce their occurrence are yet to
be formulated.
Developments required
Research is needed to estimate the economic
importance of hydatid infection in wild dogs
and associated livestock.
Consequences
Development of strategies to prevent or
reduce the occurrence of hydatid infection in
wild dogs and livestock.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 137

8.9 Assess the role of disease
induced mortality in wild
dogs
Deficiency
A poor understanding of disease and para-
site-induced mortality in wild dogs.
Developments required
The role of various parasites and diseases on
the mortality of wild dogs and the impact of
this on population dynamics in different
environments requires research.
Consequences
A better understanding of disease and para-
site-induced mortality in wild dogs.
8.10 Assess the role of wild
dogs if rabies were
introduced
Deficiency
A question that is raised by the fact that din-
goes came to Australia from Asia is, ‘Why is
there no rabies (Rhabdoviridae) in Australia?
What is different here compared with similar
habitats and fauna types in Asia?’
Developments required
Modelling using demographics and estimates
of rabies transmission coefficients will pro-
vide useful indicators of the likelihood of
rabies becoming established in wild dog
populations. Further research is needed on
the demographics and interactions of com-
mensal dogs and wild dogs in the more set-
tled areas of eastern Australia and in north-
ern Australia.
Studying the ecology and demographics of
dingoes in Asia will assist in understanding
why rabies is not endemic to Australia or
what to do if it is introduced to Australia.
Consequences
Understanding the ecology and demograph-
ics of dingoes in Asia will assist in rabies
contingency planning.
8.11 Assess risks to non-target
species of 1080 poisoning
Deficiency
Although there is evidence indicating that
the poisoning of wild dogs with 1080 is likely
to have little impact on non-target popula-
tions, this requires confirmation in eastern
Australia. The potential impact of 1080 bait-
ing for wild dog control on populations of
non-target carnivorous species (including
phascogales (Phascogale spp.) and spotted-
tailed quolls, (Dasyurus maculatus)) is the
main factor potentially limiting the use of
1080 (and particularly aerial baiting) to con-
trol wild dogs in eastern Australia.
Developments required
Scientific assessment of 1080 baiting pro-
grams on populations of non-target carnivo-
rous native animals in a variety of environ-
ments. Investigation of the potential of alter-
native baiting strategies (bait substrate,
placement of baits and timing of baiting) to
reduce non-target risks.
Consequences
A scientific basis for improved risk manage-
ment for non-target species in areas where
wild dogs are baited.
8.12 Assess the ecological
effects of wild dog control
on feral cat and fox
populations
Deficiency
There have been few investigations into the
ecological relationships between feral cats,
wild dogs and foxes (Vulpes vulpes). The effect
of controlling wild dogs on the abundance of
other predators requires further study.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
138

Developments required
Research to assess the factors influencing the
dynamics of feral cat and fox populations
and the interplay of these factors with wild
dog control. Relationships between wild
dogs and these carnivores require research
to enable better management for conserva-
tion.
Consequences
Best practice management of wild dogs,
foxes, and feral cats can be based on scientific
data rather than unsubstantiated assumptions.
8.13 Assess the interactions of
wild dogs and native
carnivore populations
Deficiency
Inadequate understanding of the interplay of
wild dog control with the factors affecting
populations of native carnivores, particularly
quolls (Dasyurus spp.).
Developments required
Research to assess the factors influencing the
dynamics of native carnivore populations
and wild dog populations, and the interplay
of these factors with wild dog control.
Consequences
Improved management for conservation of
native carnivores in areas of wild dog con-
trol.
8.14 Assess effects of wild dog
abundance on macropods
Deficiency
The control of wild dogs in forested areas of
south-eastern Australia may have caused
populations of kangaroos and wallabies
(Macropus spp.) to increase with concomi-
tant grazing impacts on agricultural and
forestry enterprises. On some holdings, a
balance is attempted between calf losses due
to predation by wild dogs and the benefits
that predation on macropods may have in
reducing grazing pressure.
Developments required
Predator–prey relationships between wild
dogs and their macropod prey require inves-
tigation in south-eastern Australia.
Consequences
Knowledge of predator–prey relationships in
cattle country of south-eastern Australia will
allow for management strategies that bal-
ance an acceptable abundance of macrop-
ods with acceptable level of predation of
calves.
8.15 Assess the values of dingo
conservation
Deficiency
Economic frameworks are needed to assist
the community in meeting dingo conserva-
tion goals. Better management of budgets
relating to the conservation of dingoes can
only be achieved if the unpriced values of
dingoes are estimated enabling marginal
analyses and cost–benefit analyses of con-
servation strategies. The contingent and
inherent values the community places on the
conservation of dingoes have not been
established.
Developments required
Establish the contingent and inherent values
of dingoes to the wider community.
Consequences
Estimation of unpriced values of dingoes will
enable marginal analyses and cost–benefit
analyses of conservation strategies to deter-
mine the most cost-effective management
strategies for meeting community conserva-
tion objectives.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 139

8.16 Develop a method to
identify genetically pure
dingoes
Deficiency
If governments enact legislation to conserve
dingoes (Section 5.3.3) while controlling
other wild dogs, non-destructive methods to
distinguish between dingoes and other wild
dogs are required. For example, conserva-
tion programs on Fraser Island would
require the capture of all wild dogs over time
to enable their genetic purity to be assessed,
with subsequent release or destruction
depending on their genetic status. At pre-
sent, there is no consensus applicable to the
whole country on what constitutes a ‘pure’
dingo.
Developments required
Techniques to differentiate between dingoes
and other wild dogs are being developed
and the continuation of this work should be
encouraged. A national decision must be sci-
entifically made on what genotype and/or
phenotype constitutes a pure dingo.
Consequences
Policy decisions and management strategies
for conservation of dingoes depend on the
ability to differentiate between subspecies of
wild dogs. Without a method of differentiat-
ing that can be applied to live animals, con-
servation strategies are impossible to imple-
ment. A national policy on the genotype
required for genetic purity will enable con-
servation to advance; without such a policy,
dingo conservation is a lost cause.
8.17 Improve knowledge about
genetics of wild dogs
Deficiency
Information on the taxonomic status of wild
dogs throughout Australia is required, espe-
cially in climatically different regions where
races of pure dingoes may occur.
Developments required
Public awareness of the issue of hybridisa-
tion, a rapid method of field assessment of
pure dingoes, and strategies and techniques
for the removal of hybrids and free-roaming
dogs from areas of pure dingoes are
required. The adequacy of refugia on islands
and the mainland to allow populations of
pure dingoes to be maintained naturally
needs investigation.
Consequences
Genetic assessment of regional variations in
dingo populations and self-sustaining popu-
lations of pure dingoes.
8.18 Assess the ecological role
of dingo hybrids
Deficiency
Although the role of dingoes in central and
northern Australia is understood, the role of
wild dogs in eastern Australian environments
is less well known. Also, it is unknown
whether the increased proportion of hybrids
will change the ecological role currently held
by dingoes.
Developments required
Scientific investigations are required to
understand the similarities and differences
between dingoes and hybrids and whether
these differences will alter predation rates on
native fauna and livestock.
Consequences
If the roles of dingoes and hybrids are differ-
ent, a new suite of management decisions
will be required. Balancing the requirements
for control and conservation in management
plans requires knowledge of potentially dif-
ferent ecological roles of dingoes and other
wild dogs.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
140

Alcock, J. (1989) Animal Behaviour: an
Evolutionary Approach. Sinauer
Associates Incorporated, Sunderland.
Alexander, R.M. (1993) Legs and locomotion
in Carnivora. N. Dunstan and M.L.
Gorman (eds) Mammals as Predators.
Symposium of the Zoological Society of
London 65: 1–13.
Algar, D. and Kinnear, J.E. (1992) Cyanide
baiting to sample fox populations and
measure changes in relative abundance.
Pp. 135–138 in: P. O'Brien and G. Berry
(eds) Wildlife Rabies Contingency
Planning in Australia. Bureau of Rural
Resources Proceedings Number 11,
Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Allen, L., Engerman, R. and Krupa, H. (1996)
Evaluation of three relative abundance
indices for assessing dingo populations.
Wildlife Research 23: 197–206.
Allen, L. and Gonzalez, T. (1998) Baiting
reduces dingo numbers, changes age
structures yet often increases calf losses.
Australian Vertebrate Pest Control
Conference 11: 421–428.
Allen, L. and Gonzalez, T. (2000) Results of
the dingo impact study. Beefy and the
Beast, Department of Natural Resources
(Queensland) newsletter, Sherwood.
Issue 6: 1–4.
Allen, L., Gonzalez, T. and Vitelli, S. (1997)
What do dingoes eat? Beefy and the Beast,
Department of Natural Resources
(Queensland) newsletter, Sherwood.
Issue 3: 4.
Allen, L.R., Fleming, P.J.S., Thompson, J.A.
and Strong, K. (1989) Effect of presenta-
tion on the attractiveness and palatability
to wild dogs and other wildlife of two
unpoisoned wild-dog bait types.
Australian Wildlife Research 16: 593–598.
Allison, C. and Coombes, I. (1969) The
Australian Hunter: A Comprehensive Guide
to Game, Equipment, Hunting and
Photography. Cassell Australia, North
Melbourne.
Andelt, W.F. (1985) Behavioural ecology of
coyotes in south Texas. Wildlife
Monographs 94: 1034–1036.
Andelt, W.F. (1992) Effectiveness of livestock
guarding dogs for reducing predation on
domestic sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin
20: 55–62.
Anderson, E.R. and McLennan, S.R. (1986)
Better management of Queensland native
pastures. J.R. Wythes and T.H. Rudder
(eds) New ways to maximise returns from
Queensland beef. Proceedings of the
Australian Society of Animal Production
16: 105–117.
Andrew, J. (undated c. 1999) Integrating
education and extension. Bureau of
Resource Sciences, Canberra.
Animal and Plant Control Commission
(1993) Present policy on management of
dingo populations in South Australia.
Unpublished policy document, South
Australian Animal and Plant Control
Commission, Adelaide.
Animal Health Committee (1990) Model code
of practice for the welfare of animals — the
sheep. No. 34. Standing Committee on
Agriculture Technical Report Series,
Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Anon (1987) Cattle guard lambs. The Furrow
92: 5.
Archer, M. (1974) New information about the
Quaternary distribution of the thylacine
(Marsupialia, Thylacinidae) in Australia.
Journal of the Proceedings of the Royal
Society of Western Australia 57: 43–50.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 141
References

Australian Associated Press (1998) ‘Child
fourth dingo victim’. Sydney Morning
Herald, April 9., p6.
Australian Geographic Society (1996) First
Fleet. Pp. 1342–1345 in: The Australian
Encyclopaedia. Australian Geographic Pty
Ltd, Terry Hills.
Backholer, J.R. (1986) A survey of landholders
on the wild dog problem in eastern Victoria:
a preliminary analysis. Unpublished report
to Land Protection Service, Department of
Conservation, Forests and Lands, Victoria.
Bacon, J.S. (1955) The Australian Dingo: The
King of the Bush. McCarron Bird,
Melbourne.
Baird, R.F. (1991) The dingo as a possible
factor in the disappearance of Gallinula
mortierii from the Australian mainland.
Emu 91: 121–122.
Balderstone, E. (1992) Maremma guard dogs
beat lamb predators. Australian Farm
Journal (February): 61.
Baldock, F.C., Arthur, R.J. and Lawrence, A.R.
(1985) A meatworks survey of bovine
hydatidosis in southern Queensland.
Australian Veterinary Journal 62:
238–243.
Bauer, F.H. (1983) The coming of European
man. Pp. 26–45 in: G. Crook (ed) Man in
the Centre. CSIRO, Melbourne.
Bauer, T.A. and Mortensen, D.A. (1992) A
comparison of economics and economic
optimum thresholds for two annual weeds
in soybeans. Weed Technology 6: 228–235.
Bay-Petersen, J.A. (1979) The role of the dog
in the economy of the New Zealand
Maori. Pp. 165–181 in: A. Anderson (ed.)
Osteological and Archaeological Papers
from the South Pacific in Honour of R. J.
Scarlett. New Zealand Archaeological
Monograph II. BAR International Series
62.
Beck, A.M. (1973) The Ecology of Stray Dogs:
A Study of Free-ranging Urban Dogs.
York Press, Baltimore.
Bekoff, M. (1975) Social behaviour and ecolo-
gy of the African Canidae: a review. Pp.
120–142 in: M.W. Fox (ed.) The Wild
Canids: Their Systematics, Behavioural
Ecology and Evolution. Nostrand Reinhold
Company, New York.
Belcher, C.A. (1998) Susceptibility of the
tiger quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, and the
eastern quoll, D. viverrinus, to 1080-poi-
soned bait in control programmes for ver-
tebrate pests in eastern Australia. Wildlife
Research 25: 33–40.
Bellwood, P. (1978) Man's Conquest of the
Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia
and Oceania. Collins, Auckland.
Bellwood, P. (1984) The great Pacific migra-
tion. Pp. 80–93 in: Yearbook of Science
and the Future 1984. Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Washington.
Best, L.W., Corbett, L.K., Stephens, D.R. and
Newsome, A.E. (1974) Baiting trials for
dingoes in Central Australia, with poison
'1080', encapsulated strychnine, and
strychnine suspended in methyl cellulose.
CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research
Technical Paper No. 30.
Bird, P. (1994) Improved electric fences and
baiting techniques — a behavioural
approach to integrated dingo control.
Unpublished Final Report on Project DAS
39 to the Wool Research and
Development Corporation.
Bird, P., Lock, B. and Cook, J. (1997) The
Muloorina Cell: a long-term trial to assess
electric dingo fence designs. Unpublished
report to the South Australian Dog Fence
Board, Adelaide.
Bomford, M. and O’Brien, P. (1995) Eradication
or control for vertebrate pests? Wildlife
Society Bulletin 23: 249–255.
Bomford, M. and workshop participants
(1995) Integrating the science and eco-
nomics of vertebrate pest management.
Unpublished workshop papers. Bureau of
Resource Sciences, Canberra.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
142

Braysher, M. (1993) Managing Vertebrate
Pests: Principles and Strategies. Bureau of
Resource Sciences, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Breckwoldt, R. (1988) A Very Elegant
Animal: the Dingo. Angus and Robertson,
Australia.
Brisbin, I.L. (1989) The Carolina dog. Off-
lead (Jan): 18.
Brisbin, I.L. (1998) Comment on the pro-
posed conservation of usage of 15 mam-
mal specific names based on wild species
which are antedated by or contemporary
with those based on domestic animals.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53:
28–37.
Brown, G.W. and Triggs, B.E. (1990) Diets of
wild canids and foxes in east Gippsland
1983–1987, using predator scat analysis.
Australian Mammalogy 13: 209–13.
Bureau of Rural Sciences/Centre for
Agricultural and Regional Economics
(1999). Vertebrate Pest Control Simulation
Model (CD-ROM), v. 1.1.20.
Burbidge, A.A. and McKenzie, N.L. (1989)
Patterns in the modern decline of Western
Australia's vertebrate fauna: causes and
conservation implications. Biological
Conservation 50: 143–198.
Burns, R.J. (1983) Coyote predation aversion
with lithium chloride: management impli-
cations and comments. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 11: 128–132.
Busana, F., Gigliotti, F. and Marks, C.A.
(1998) Modified M-44 cyanide ejector for
the baiting of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes).
Wildlife Research 25: 209–215.
Calver, M.C., King, D.R., Bradley, J.S. and
Martin, G.R. (1989) An assessment of the
potential target specificity of 1080 preda-
tor baiting in Western Australia.
Australian Wildlife Research 16: 625–638.
Carbyn, L.N. (1989) Coyote attacks on chil-
dren in western North America. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 17: 444–446.
Carlisle, C.H. and Atwell, R.B. (1984) A sur-
vey of heartworms in dogs. Australian
Veterinary Journal 61: 356–360.
Catling, P.C. (1979) Seasonal variation in
plasma testosterone and the testis in cap-
tive male dingoes, Canis familiaris dingo.
Australian Journal of Wildlife 27:
939–944.
Catling, P.C. and Burt, R.J. (1995) Why are
red foxes absent from some eucalypt
forests in eastern New South Wales?
Wildlife Research 22: 535–546.
Catling, P.C., Burt, R.J. and Kooyman, R.
(1997) A comparison of techniques used
in a survey of the ground-dwelling and
arboreal mammals in forests in north-east-
ern New South Wales. Wildlife Research
24: 417–432.
Catling, P.C., Corbett, L.K. and Newsome,
A.E. (1992) Reproduction in captive and
wild dingoes (Canis familiaris dingo) in
temperate and arid environments of
Australia. Wildlife Research 19: 195–205.
Catling, P.C., Corbett, L.K. and Westcott, M.
(1991) Age determination in dingoes and
cross breeds. Wildlife Research 18: 75–83.
Caughley, G. (1980) Analysis of Vertebrate
Populations. John Wiley and Sons Ltd,
Chichester.
Caughley, G., Grigg, G.C., Caughley, J. and
Hill, G.J.E. (1980) Does dingo predation
control the densities of kangaroos and
emus? Australian Wildlife Research 7: 1–12.
Caughley, G. and Sinclair, A.R.E. (1994)
Wildlife Ecology and Management.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston.
Caughley, J., Bomford, M., Parker, B.,
Sinclair, R., Griffiths, J. and Kelly, D.
(1998) Managing Vertebrate Pests:
Rodents. Bureau of Resource Sciences,
Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Chamala, S. and Mortiss, P.D. (1990)
Working together for Land Care: Group
Management Skills and Strategies.
Australian Academic Press, Brisbane.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 143

Chiarelli, A.B. (1975) The chromosomes of
the Canidae. Pp. 40–53 in: M.W. Fox (ed.)
The Wild Canids: Their Systematics,
Behavioural Ecology and Evolution. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Choquenot, D., McIlroy, J. and Korn, T. (1996)
Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Pigs.
Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1977) Man-made dogs.
Science 197: 1340–1342..
Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.) (1989) The Walking
Larder: Patterns of Domestication,
Pastoralism and Predation. Unwin
Hyman, London.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1992) The process of
domestication. Mammal Review 22:
79–85.
Coe, S. (1997) The Basenji. Doral Publishing,
Wilsonville.
Colenso, W. (1877) Notes on the ancient dog
of the New Zealanders. Transactions and
Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute
10: 135–155.
Coman, B.J. (1972a) Helminth parasites of
the dingo and feral dog in Victoria with
some notes on the diet of the host.
Australian Veterinary Journal 48:
456–461.
Coman, B.J. (1972b) A sylvatic cycle for the
hydatid tapeworm (Echinococcus granu-
losus) in remote areas of eastern Victoria.
Australian Veterinary Journal 48:
552–553.
Coman, B.J. and Robinson, J.L. (1989) Some
aspects of stray dog behaviour in an urban
fringe area. Australian Veterinary
Journal 66: 30–32.
Commonwealth of Australia (1992) National
Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s
Biological Diversity. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Connolly, G.E. (1980) Use of compound
1080 in livestock neck collars to kill
depredating coyotes: a report on field and
laboratory research. U.S. Department of
the Interior., Denver, Colorado.
Copinger, R. and Copinger, L. (1978)
Livestock Guarding Dogs for U.S.
Agriculture. Livestock Dog Project,
Montague.
Corbett, L.K. (1974) Contributions to the
biology of dingoes (Carnivora: Canidae)
in Victoria. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis,
Monash University, Melbourne.
Corbett, L.K. (1985) Morphological compar-
isons of Australian and Thai dingoes: a
reappraisal of dingo status, distribution and
ancestry. Proceedings of the Ecological
Society of Australia 13: 277–291.
Corbett, L.K. (1988a) The identity and biolo-
gy of Thai dingoes. Unpublished Final
Report to the National Research Council
of Thailand, Bangkok.
Corbett, L.K. (1988b) Social dynamics of a
captive dingo pack: population regulation
by dominant female infanticide. Ethology
78: 177–98.
Corbett, L.K. (1989) Assessing the diet of din-
goes from feces: a comparison of 3 meth-
ods. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:
343–346.
Corbett, L. (1995a) The Dingo in Australia
and Asia. University of New South Wales
Press Ltd, Sydney.
Corbett, L. (1995b) Dingoes: Expatriate
wolves or native dogs? Nature Australia
25: 46–55.
Corbett, L.K. (1995c) Does dingo predation
or buffalo competition regulate feral pig
populations in the Australian wet–dry
tropics? An experimental study. Wildlife
Research 22: 65–74.
Corbett, L. (1998) Management of dingoes on
Fraser Island. Unpublished report to the
Queensland Department of Environment,
Brisbane.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
144

Corbett, L. (In press) The conservation status
of dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) in
Australia, with particular reference to New
South Wales: threats to pure dingoes and
potential solutions. Australian Zoologist.
Corbett, L. and Newsome, A. (1975) Dingo
Society and its Maintenance: a Preliminary
Analysis. Pp. 369–379 in: M.W. Fox (ed.)
The Wild Canids: Their Systematics,
Behavioural Ecology and Evolution.
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Corbett, L.K. and Newsome, A.E. (1987) The
feeding ecology of the dingo. III. Dietary
relationships with widely fluctuating prey
populations in arid Australia: an hypothe-
sis of alternation of predation. Oecologia
74: 215–227.
Cornell, D. and Cornely, J.E. (1979) Aversive
conditioning of campground coyotes in
Joshua Tree National Monument. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 7: 129–131.
Denny, M. (1992) Dorrigo Management
Area Fauna Impact Statement of
Proposed Forestry Operations. Forestry
Commission of New South Wales, Sydney.
Dickman, C.R. (1996) Overview of the
impacts of feral cats on Australian fauna.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency,
Canberra.
Dixon, J.M. (1989) Thylacinidae. Pp. 549–559
in: D.W. Dalton and B.J. Richardson (eds)
Fauna of Australia. Mammalia. Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Dixon, J.M. and Huxley, L. (eds) (1985)
Donald Thomson's Mammals and Fishes
of Northern Australia. Nelson,
Melbourne.
Dobbie, W.R., Berman, D.M. and Braysher,
M.L. (1993) Managing Vertebrate Pests:
Feral Horses. Bureau of Resource Sciences,
Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Durie, P.H. and Riek, R.F. (1952) The role of the
dingo and wallaby in the infestation of cattle
with hydatids (Echinococcus granulosus)
(Batsch 1786; Rudolph 1805) in
Queensland. Australian Veterinary Journal
28: 249–254.
Eason, C.T., Wickstrom, M.L. and Spurrs, E.B.
(1998) Review of impacts of large-scale
sodium monofluroacetate (1080) use in
New Zealand. Australian Vertebrate Pest
Control Conference 11: 105–110.
Edwards, G.P, de Preu, N.D, Shakeshaft, B.J
and Crealy, I.V. (2000) An evaluation of
two methods of assessing feral cat and
dingo abundance in central Australia.
Wildlife Research 27: 143–149.
Eldridge, S.R. and Bryan, R. (1995) Dingo
questionnaire survey June–November
1995. Unpublished report to Parks and
Wildlife Commission, Northern Territory,
Darwin.
English, A.W. and Taske, J.E. (1998) A possi-
ble role for the application of veterinary
capture techniques to the restraint of
human offenders. P 48 in: Unpublished
Handbook of the Australian Veterinary
Association Annual Conference, Sydney.
Ernest, H.B., Penedo, M.C.T, May, B.P.,
Syvanen, M. and Boyce, W.M (2000).
Molecular tracking of mountain lions in
the Yosemite Valley region in California:
genetic analysis using microsatellites and
faecal DNA. Molecular Ecology 9:
433–441.
Fawcett, A.M. (1994) Assessment of bait sta-
tions for the control of wild dogs on the
New England Tablelands. Unpublished
B.Sc. (Hons) thesis, University of New
England, Armidale.
Fenner, F., Bachmann, P.A., Gibbs, E.P.J.,
Murphy, F.A., Studdert, M.J. and White,
D.O. (1987) Rhabdoviridae. Pp. 531–541
in: Veterinary Virology. Academic Press,
London.
Fennessy, B.V. (1966) The impact of wildlife
species on sheep production in Australia.
Proceedings of the Australian Society for
Animal Production 6: 148–156.
Finlayson, H.H. (1935) The Red Centre: Man
and Beast in the Heart of Australia.
Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 145

Fleming, P.J.S. (1987) Wild dog predation in
north-eastern New South Wales. Australian
Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 8:
103–106.
Fleming, P.J.S. (1996a) Ground-placed baits
for the control of wild dogs: evaluation of
a replacement-baiting strategy in north-
eastern New South Wales. Wildlife
Research 23: 729–740.
Fleming, P.J.S. (1996b) Aspects of the man-
agement of wild dogs (Canis familiaris)
in north-eastern New South Wales.
Unpublished M.Res.Sc. thesis, University
of New England, Armidale.
Fleming, P.J.S., Allen, L.R., Berghout, M.J.,
Meek, P.D., Pavlov, P.M., Stevens, P.,
Strong, K., Thompson, J.A. and Thomson,
P.C. (1998) The performance of wild-
canid traps in Australia: efficiency, selec-
tivity and trap-related injuries. Wildlife
Research 25: 327–338.
Fleming, P.J.S., Allen, L.R. and Mitchell, J.L.
(1992) The control of wild canids in east-
ern Australia in relation to wildlife rabies.
Pp. 139–146 in: P. O'Brien and G. Berry
(eds) Wildlife Rabies Contingency
Planning in Australia. Bureau of Rural
Resources Proceedings Number 11,
Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Fleming, P.J.S. and Korn, T.J. (1989)
Predation of livestock by wild dogs in
eastern New South Wales. Australian
Rangelands Journal 11: 61–66.
Fleming, P.J.S. and Parker, R.W. (1991)
Temporal decline of 1080 within meat
baits used for wild dog control in New
South Wales. Wildlife Research 18:
729–740.
Fleming, P.J.S. and Robinson, D. (1986) The
impact of wild dogs on livestock produc-
tion. Proceedings of the Australian
Society for Animal Production 16: 84–87.
Fleming, P.J.S., Thompson, J.A. and Nicol, H.I.
(1996) Indices for measuring the efficacy of
aerial baiting for wild dog control in north-
eastern New South Wales. Wildlife Research
23: 665–674.
Foley, J.C. (1957) Droughts in Australia.
Review of records from earliest years of set-
tlement to 1955. Bureau of Meteorology
Bulletin 43: 1–281.
Fordyce, G. and Entwistle, K.W. (1992)
Improving breeder herd efficiency in
north Queensland. M.T. Sullivan (ed.)
Changing beef markets — should north
Queensland producers change manage-
ment to meet them? Proceedings of the
Australian Society of Animal Production
19: 55–56.
Forman, A.J. (1993) The threat of rabies
introduction and establishment in
Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal
70: 81–83.
Fox, M.W. (1971) Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs
and Related Canids. Harper and Row,
New York.
Friedel, M.H., Foran, B.D. and Stafford
Smith, D.M. (1990) Where the creeks run
dry or ten feet high: pastoral management
in arid Australia. Proceedings of the
Ecological Society of Australia 16:
185–194.
Gallagher, B. (1991) 8th International Power
Fence Manual. Gallagher Electronics Ltd,
Hamilton, New Zealand.
Garner, M.G. (1992) World rabies picture:
implications for Australia. Pp. 23–37 in: P.
O'Brien and G. Berry (eds) Wildlife Rabies
Contingency Planning in Australia.
Bureau of Rural Resources Proceedings
Number 11, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Geering, W.A. and Forman, A.J. (1987)
Animal Health in Australia. Volume 9.
Exotic Diseases. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Gentry, A., Clutton-Brock, J. and Groves, C.P.
(1996) Case 3010: Proposed conservation
of usage of 15 mammal specific names
based on wild species which are antedat-
ed by or contemporary with those based
on domestic animals. Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature 53: 28–37.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
146

Ginsberg, J.R. and Macdonald, D.W. (1990)
Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. An Action
Plan for the Conservation of Canids.
IUCN/SSC Canid and Wolf Specialist Groups,
IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge.
Gould, J. (1863) The Mammals of Australia.
Volume III. Republished (1976) by J.M
Dixon as The Placental Mammals of
Australia, with modern commentaries.
Macmillan Company, South Melbourne.
Green, B. (1973) The water requirements of
dingoes. Australian Vertebrate Pest Control
Conference 5: 76–77.
Green, B. and Catling, P. (1977) The biology
of the dingo. Pp. 51–60 in: H. Messel and
S.T. Butler (eds) Australian Animals and
their Environment. Shakespeare Head
Press, Sydney.
Green, J.S., Woodruff, R.A. and Andelt, W.F.
(1994) Do livestock guarding dogs lose
their effectiveness over time? Vertebrate
Pest Conference (California) 16: 41–44.
Gregory, G. (1991) Perception of pain asso-
ciated with 1080 poisoning. Australian
Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 9:
300–302.
Gustavson, C.R., Gustavson, J.C. and Holzer,
G.A. (1983) Thiabendazole-based taste
aversions in dingoes (Canis familiaris
dingo) and New Guinea wild dogs (Canis
familiaris hallstromi). Applied Animal
Ethology 10: 385–388.
Hamilton, A. (1972) Aboriginal man's best
friend. Mankind 8: 287–295.
Harden, R. (1981) A look at the dingo.
Australian Natural History 20: 191–194.
Harden, R.H. (1985) The ecology of the
dingo in north-eastern New South Wales.
I. Movements and home range.
Australian Wildlife Research 12: 25–38.
Harden, R.H. and Robertshaw, J.D. (1987)
The ecology of the dingo in north-eastern
New South Wales. V. Human predation on
the dingo. Australian Zoologist 24: 65–72.
Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd (1998)
Economic evaluation of the role of boun-
ties in vertebrate pest management.
Unpublished report to the Vertebrate Pest
Program, Bureau of Resource Sciences,
Canberra.
Higham, G.H.E., Kijngam, A. and Manly,
B.F.J. (1980) An analysis of prehistoric
canid remains from Thailand. Journal of
Archaeological Science 7: 149–165.
Holden, P. (1991) Along the Dingo Fence.
Hodder and Stoughton, Sydney.
Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl,
J.W. (eds) (1982) Mammal Species of the
World: A Taxonomic and Geographic
Reference. Allen Press and Association of
Systematic Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Hone, J. (1994) Analysis of Vertebrate Pest
Control. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hone, J. and Mulligan, H. (1982) Vertebrate
Pesticides. Science Bulletin 89. Department
of Agriculture New South Wales.
Hone, J., Waithman, J., Robards, G.E. and
Saunders, G.R. (1981) Impact of wild
mammals and birds on agriculture in New
South Wales. Journal of the Australian
Institute of Agricultural Science 47:
191–199.
Hooper, P.T., Sallaway, M.M., Latz, P.K.,
Maconochie, J.R.,Hyde, K.W., and Corbett,
L.K. (1973). Ayers Rock – Mt. Olga
National Park environmental study, 1972.
Land Conservation Series 2: 1–52.
Howell, R.G. (1982) The urban coyote prob-
lem in Los Angeles county. Vertebrate Pest
Conference (California) 9: 21–23.
Huffacker, C.B. (1970) The phenomenon of
predation and its role in nature. Pp 327–343
in: P.J Den Boer and G.R Gradwell (eds)
Dynamics of populations: proceedings of
the Advanced Study Institute on Dynamics
of numbers in populations. Oesterback, the
Netherlands, 7–18 September 1970.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 147

Hunt, E.R. (1978) Hydatid disease — danger
to man's health. Agricultural Gazette of
New South Wales. 85: 1–4.
Jarman, P. (1986) The red fox — an exotic,
large predator. Pp. 43–61 in: R.L. Kitching
(ed.) The Ecology of Exotic Animals and
Plants: Some Australian Case Histories.
Wiley, Brisbane.
Jarman, P.J. and Wright, S.M. (1993)
Macropod studies at Wallaby Creek. IX.
Exposure and responses of eastern grey
kangaroos to dingoes. Wildlife Research
20: 833–843.
Jenkins, D.J. and Power, K. (1996) Human
hydatidosis in New South Wales and the
Australian Capital Territory. Medical
Journal of Australia 164: 18–21.
Johnson, K.A., Burbidge, A.A. and
McKenzie, N.L. (1989) Australian
Macropodidoidea: status, causes of
decline and future research and manage-
ment. Pp. 641–657 in: G. Grigg, P. Jarman
and I. Hume, eds, Kangaroos, Wallabies
and Rat-kangaroos. Surrey Beatty and
Sons Pty Limited, Sydney.
Johnston, M.J. and Marks, C.A. (1997)
Attitudinal Survey on Vertebrate Pest
Management in Victoria. Report Series
Number 3. Agriculture Victoria and
Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Frankston.
Jolly, S.E. and Jolly, L.M. (1992a)
Environmental influences of the ability of
captive dingoes to find meat baits.
Journal of Wildlife Management 56:
448–452.
Jolly, S.E. and Jolly, L.M. (1992b) Pen and
field tests of odour attractants for the
dingo. Journal of Wildlife Management
56: 452–456.
Jones, E. (1990) Physical characteristics and
taxonomic status of wild canids, Canis
familiaris, from the eastern highlands of
Victoria. Australian Wildlife Research 17:
69–81.
Jones, M. (1995) Tasmanian Devil Sarcophilus
harrissii. Pp. 82–84 in: R. Strahan (ed.) The
Mammals of Australia. Australian
Museum/Reed Books, Chatswood.
Jones, E. and Stevens, P.L. (1988) Reproduction
in wild canids, Canis familiaris, from the
eastern highlands of Victoria. Australian
Wildlife Research 15: 385–394.
Jones, R.E. and Vere D. T. (1998) The eco-
nomics of serrated tussock in New South
Wales. Plant Protection Quarterly
13:70–76.
Kelly, J.D. (1977) Canine Parasitology.
University of Sydney Post-graduate
Foundation in Veterinary Science, Sydney.
Kilgour, R. (1985) Management in behaviour.
Pp. 445–458 in: A.F. Fraser (ed.) Ethology
of Farm Animals: A Comprehensive Study
of the Behavioural Features of Common
Farm Animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
King, D.R. (1984) 1080 — A selective poison
for pests. Journal of Agriculture Western
Australia 25: 12–14.
King, D.R. (1989) An assessment of the haz-
ard posed to northern quolls (Dasyurus
hallucatus) by aerial baiting with 1080 to
control dingoes. Australian Wildlife
Research 16: 569–574.
Kirkpatrick, W.E. (1999) Assessment of sodi-
um monofluroacetate (1080) in baits and
its biodegradation by microorganisms.
Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth.
Kleiman, D. (1966) Scent marking in the
Canidae. Symposium of the Zoological
Society of London 18: 167–177.
Koehn, J., Brumley, A. and Gehrke, P. (2000)
Managing the Impacts of Carp. Bureau of
Rural Sciences (Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry —
Australia), Canberra.
Korn, T. and Fleming, P. (1989) Controlling
Wild Dogs. Agfact A9.0.14. New South
Wales Agriculture and Fisheries, Sydney.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
148

Kruuk, H. (1972a) The Spotted Hyaena: A
Study of Predation and Social Behaviour.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
and London.
Kruuk, H. (1972b) Surplus killing by carni-
vores. Journal of Zoology, London 166:
233–244.
Lawrence, B. and Bossert, W.H. (1967)
Multiple character analysis of Canis lupus,
latrans, and familiaris, with a discussion
of the relationships of Canis niger.
American Zoologist 7: 1659–1673.
Leftwich, R.L. and Eckert, R. (1982) The Price
System and Resource Allocation. Eighth
edition. The Dryden Press, Chicago.
Luenberger, D.G. (1984) Linear and Non-
linear Programming. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Reading,
Massachusetts.
Lumholtz, C. (1889) Amongst Cannibals. J.
Murray, London.
Lunney, D., Triggs, B., Eby, P. and Ashby, E.
(1990) Analysis of scats of dogs Canis
familiaris and foxes Vulpes vulpes
(Canidae: Carnivora) in coastal forests
near Bega, New South Wales. Australian
Wildlife Research 17: 61–68.
Macknight, C.C. (1976) The Voyage to
Marege: Macassan Trepangers in
Northern Australia. Melbourne University
Press, Melbourne.
Mahon, P.S., Banks, P.B. and Dickman, C.R.
(1998) Population indices for wild carni-
vores: a critical study in sand-dune habi-
tat, south-western Queensland. Wildlife
Research 25: 11–22.
Manwell, C. and Baker, C.M.A. (1984)
Domestication of the dog: hunter, food,
bed-warmer, or emotional object. Zeitschrift
für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie
101: 241–256.
Marks, C.A. and Bloomfield, T.E. (1998)
Canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis)
detected in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in
urban Melbourne. Veterinary Parasitology
78: 147–154.
Marks, C.A., Busana, F. and Gigliotti, F.
(1999) Assessment of the M-44 ejector for
the delivery of 1080 for red fox (Vulpes
vulpes) control. Wildlife Research 26:
101–109.
Marsack, P. and Campbell, G. (1990) Feeding
behaviour and diet of dingoes in the
Nullarbor region, Western Australia.
Australian Wildlife Research 17: 349–357.
Marsterson, S. (1994) Monitoring and man-
agement of dingoes in the Central Station
area, Fraser Island. Unpublished report to
the Queensland Department of
Environment, Brisbane.
McIlroy, J.C. (1981) The sensitivity of
Australian animals to 1080 poison II.
Marsupial and eutherian carnivores.
Australian Wildlife Research 8: 385–399.
McIlroy, J.C., Cooper, R.J., Gifford, E.J.,
Green, B.F. and Newgrain, K.W. (1986a)
The effect on wild dogs, Canis f. famil-
iaris, of 1080 poisoning campaigns in
Kosciusko National Park, New South
Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 13:
535–544.
McIlroy, J.C., Gifford, E.J. and Carpenter,
S.M. (1988) The effect of rainfall and
blowfly larvae on the toxicity of 1080-
treated meat baits used in poisoning cam-
paigns against wild dogs. Australian
Wildlife Research 15: 473–483.
McIlroy, J.C., Gifford, E.J. and Cooper, R.J.
(1986b) Effects on non-target animal pop-
ulations of wild dog trail-baiting cam-
paigns with 1080 poison. Australian
Wildlife Research 13: 447–453.
Mech, L.D. (1970) The Wolf: Ecology and
Behaviour of an Endangered Species.
Natural History Press, New York.
Mech, L.D. (1986) Wolf population in the
Central Superior National Forest,
1967–1985. NC-270. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper.
Medway, L. (1977) The ancient domestic
dogs of Malaysia. Journal of the Royal
Asia Society (Malaysia) 50: 14–27.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 149

Meek, P.D. (1998) The biology of the
European red fox and the free roaming
dog on Bherwerre Peninsula, Jervis Bay.
Unpublished M.Appl.Sc. thesis, University
of Canberra, Canberra.
Meek, P.D. (1999) The movements, roaming
behaviour and home range of free-roam-
ing domestic dogs, Canis lupus familiaris,
in coastal New South Wales. Wildlife
Research 26: 847–855.
Meek, P., Jenkins, D.J., Morris, B., Ardler, A.J.
and Hawksby, R.J. (1995) Use of two
humane leg-holding traps for catching
pest species. Wildlife Research 22:
733–793.
Meggit, M.J. (1965) The association between
Australian Aborigines and dingoes. Pp
7–26 in: Man, Culture and Animals: The
Role of Animals in Human Ecological
Adjustments. Publication 78, American
Association for the Advancement of
Science, Washington, D.C.
Messier, F. (1985) Social organisation, spatial
distribution and population density of
wolves in relation to moose density.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:
1068–1077.
Milham, P. and Thompson, P. (1976) Relative
antiquity of human occupation and
extinct fauna at Madura Cave, south-east-
ern Western Australia. Mankind 10:
175–180.
Mitchell, J. and Kelly, A. (1992) Evaluating
odour attractants for control of wild dogs.
Wildlife Research 19: 211–219.
Mitchell, R.J. (1986) Some perspectives of the
costs and benefits of the Department's
wild dog control program. Unpublished
report to the Department of Conservation,
Forests and Lands, Melbourne.
Morling, T.R. (1987) Report of the
Commissioner the Hon. Mr Justice T.R
Morling. Royal Commission of Inquiry into
Chamberlain Convictions. Government
printer, Darwin.
Morton, S.R. (1990) The impact of European
settlement on the vertebrate animals of
arid Australia: a conceptual model.
Proceedings of the Ecological Society of
Australia 16: 201–213.
Moussalli, A. (1994) A preliminary field study
of dingoes inhabiting the Waddy point
region, northeast Fraser Island: diet, social
organisation and behaviour. Unpublished
B.Env.Sc. thesis, Griffith University,
Brisbane.
Mowat, G. and Strobeck, C. (2000)
Estimating population size of grizzly bears
using hair capture, DNA profiling, and
mark–recapture analysis. Journal of
Wildlife Management 64:183–193.
Murray, A. (1998) Tigers and 1080.
Unpublished report to the Natural
Heritage Working Group of the Australian
Alps Liaison Committee.
New England Rural Development
Association (undated c. 1966) Dingoes in
New England. Community Development
Pamphlet No. 7. University of New
England, Armidale.
Newsome, A. (1990) The control of verte-
brate pests by vertebrate predators.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:
187–191.
Newsome, A. and Catling, P. (1992) Host
range and its implications for wildlife
rabies in Australia. Pp. 97–107 in: P.
O'Brien and G. Berry (eds) Wildlife Rabies
Contingency Planning in Australia.
Bureau of Rural Resources Proceedings
Number 11, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Newsome, A.E., Catling, P.C. and Corbett,
L.K. (1983a) The feeding ecology of the
dingo II. Dietary and numerical relation-
ships with fluctuating prey populations in
south-eastern Australia. Australian
Journal of Ecology 8: 345–366.
Newsome, A.E. and Coman, B.J. (1989)
Canidae. Pp. 993–1005 in: D.W. Walton and
B.J. Richardson (eds) Fauna of Australia.
Mammalia. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
150

Newsome, A.E. and Corbett, L.K. (1975) VI.
Outbreaks of rodents in semi-arid and arid
Australia: Causes, preventions, and evolu-
tionary considerations. Pp. 117–153 in: I.
Prakash and P.K. Ghosh (eds) Rodents in
Desert Environments. Dr. W. Junk, The
Hague.
Newsome, A.E. and Corbett, L.K. (1977) The
effects of native, feral and domestic ani-
mals on the productivity of Australian
rangelands. Pp. 332–356 in: The Impact of
Herbivores on Arid and Semi-arid
Rangelands. Australian Rangeland
Society, Perth.
Newsome, A.E. and Corbett, L.K. (1982) The
identity of the dingo II. Hybridisation with
domestic dogs in captivity and in the wild.
Australian Journal of Zoology 30:
365–374.
Newsome, A.E. and Corbett, L.K. (1985) The
identity of the dingo III. The incidence of
dingoes, dogs and hybrids and their coat
colours in remote and settled regions of
Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology
33: 363–375.
Newsome, A.E., Corbett, L.K., Best, L.W. and
Green, B. (1973) The dingo. Australian
Meat Research Committee Review 14:
1–11.
Newsome, A.E., Corbett, L.K. and Carpenter,
S.M. (1980) The identity of the dingo. I.
Morphological discriminants of dog and
dingo skulls. Australian Journal of
Zoology 28: 615–626.
Newsome, A.E., Corbett, L.K., Catling, P.C.
and Burt, R.J. (1983b) The feeding ecolo-
gy of the dingo. I. Stomach contents from
trapping in south-eastern Australia, and
non-target wildlife also caught in dingo
traps. Australian Wildlife Research 10:
477–486.
Newsome, A.E., Corbett, L.K. and Stevens,
D.R. (1972) Assessment of an aerial bait-
ing campaign against dingoes in central
Australia. CSIRO Division of Wildlife
Research Technical Paper No. 24.
Norton, G.A. (1988). Philosophy, concepts
and techniques. Pp. 1–17 in: G.A. Norton
and R.P. Pech (eds) Vertebrate Pest
Management in Australia: A Decision
Analysis/ Systems Analysis Approach.
Project Report Number 5, CSIRO, Division
of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra.
O'Brien, P. (1992) Introduction: rabies in
wildlife. Pp. 3–5 in: P. O'Brien and G.
Berry (eds) Wildlife Rabies Contingency
Planning in Australia. Bureau of Rural
Resources Proceedings Number 11,
Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Obendorf, D.L., Matheson, M.J. and
Thompson, R.C.A. (1989) Echinococcus
granulosus infection of foxes in south-
eastern New South Wales. Australian
Veterinary Journal 66: 123–124.
Olsen, P. (1998) Australia's Pest Animals:
New Solutions to Old Problems. Bureau of
Resource Sciences, Canberra and
Kangaroo Press, Sydney.
Olsen, S.J. and Olsen, J.W. (1977) The
Chinese wolf: ancestor of the New World
dogs. Science 197: 533–535.
Otis, D.L., Burnham, K.P., White, G.C. and
Anderson, D.R. (1978) Statistical inference
from capture data on closed animal popu-
lations. Wildlife Monographs 62: 1–135.
Parkes, J., Henzell, R. and Pickles, G. (1996)
Managing Vertebrate Pests: Feral Goats.
Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian
Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Pavlov, P.M. (1991) Aspects of the ecology of
the feral pig (Sus scrofa) in semi-arid and
tropical areas of eastern Australia.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Monash
University, Melbourne.
Pech, R.P., Sinclair, A.R.E., Newsome, A.E.
and Catling, P.C. (1992) Limits to predator
regulation of rabbits in Australia: evidence
from predator-removal experiments.
Oecologia 89: 102–112.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 151

Pemberton, D. and Renouf, D. (1993) A field
study of communication and social
behaviour of the Tasmanian Devil at feed-
ing sites. Australian Journal of Zoology
41: 507–526.
Peterson, R.O. and Page, R.E. (1988) The rise
and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975–1986.
Journal of Mammology 69: 89–99.
Pickering, M. (1992) Garawa methods of
game hunting, preparation and cooking.
Records of the South Australian Museum
26: 9–23.
Pople, A.R., Grigg, G.C., Cairns, S.C., Beard,
L.A. and Alexander, P. (2000) Trends in
the numbers of red kangaroos and emus
on either side of the South Australian
dingo fence: evidence of predator regula-
tion? Wildlife Research 27: 269–276.
Pretty, J.N. (1994) Alternative systems of
enquiry for sustainable agriculture.
University of Sussex, United Kingdom.
Institute for Developmental Studies
Bulletin 25: 37–46.
Price, S. (1994) Monitoring and management
of dingoes in the Waddy Point area, Fraser
Island. Unpublished report to the
Queensland Department of Environment,
Brisbane.
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
(1999) Draft Fraser Island dingo manage-
ment strategy. The State of Queensland,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Brisbane.
Ralls, K. (1971) Mammalian scent marking.
Science 171: 443–449.
Rankine, G. and Donaldson, L.E. (1968)
Animal behaviour and calf mortalities in a
north Queensland breeding herd.
Proceedings of the Australian Society of
Animal Production 4: 138–143.
Reichel, M.P., Lyford, R.A. and Gasser, R.B.
(1994) Hyperendemic focus of echinococ-
cosis in north-eastern Victoria. The Medical
Journal of Australia 160: 499–501.
Reiger, I. (1979) Scent rubbing in carnivores.
Carnivore 2: 17–25.
Robertshaw, J.D. and Harden, R.H. (1985a)
Ecology of the dingo in north-eastern
New South Wales. II. Diet. Australian
Wildlife Research 12: 39–50.
Robertshaw, J.D. and Harden, R.H. (1985b)
Ecology of the dingo in north-eastern
New South Wales. III. Analysis of macrop-
od bone fragment in dingo scats.
Australian Wildlife Research 12: 163–171.
Robertshaw, J.D. and Harden, R.H. (1986)
Ecology of the dingo in north-eastern
New South Wales. IV. Prey selection by
dingoes and its effect on the major prey
species, the swamp wallaby (Wallabia
bicolor Desmarest). Australian Wildlife
Research 13: 141–163.
Robertshaw, J.D. and Harden, R.H. (1989)
Predation in Macropodoidea: a review.
Pp. 735–753 in: G. Grigg, P. Jarman and I.
Hume (eds) Kangaroos, Wallabies and
Rat-kangaroos. Surrey Beatty and Sons
Pty Limited, Sydney.
Rolls, E.C. (1984) They All Ran Wild: the
Animals and Plants that Plague
Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Rothman, R.J. and Mech, L.D. (1979) Scent-
marking in lone wolves and newly formed
pairs. Animal Behaviour 27: 750–760.
Roughton, R.D. and Sweeney, M.W. (1982)
Refinements in scent-station methodology
for assessing trends in carnivore popula-
tions. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:
217–229.
Rounsevell, D.E. and Mooney, N. (1995)
Thylacine. Pp. 164–165 in: R. Strahan (ed.)
The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books,
Chatswood.
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals) [Online] (1997).
Dingoes: Position Paper. Available:
www.rspca.org.au/.
Russell, R.C. (1990) The relative importance
of various mosquitoes for the transmission
and control of dog heartworm in south-
eastern Australia. Australian Veterinary
Journal 67: 191–192.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
152

Saunders, G., Bunn, C., Eggleston, G., Garner,
G. and Henzell, R. (1999). Ausvetplan Wild
Animal Management Manual. 2nd Edition.
Agriculture and Resource Management
Council of Australia. Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry – Australia, Canberra.
Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J. and
Braysher, M. (1995) Managing Vertebrate
Pests: Foxes. Bureau of Resource Sciences,
Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Saunders, G. and Fleming, P. (1988)
Interaction between feral pigs, wild dogs
and agriculture on the tablelands and
coast of N.S.W. Unpublished Final Report
on Project DAN 15P to the Wool Research
and Development Fund.
Saunders, G., Korn, T. and Giles, J. (1985)
Review into wild dog control in eastern
N.S.W. Unpublished report to the Director
General of New South Wales Agriculture
and Fisheries, Sydney.
Savant, P. (1969) Dingoes will attack
humans. People Magazine (May): 7.
Schaefer, M.M. (1981) The feral dog:
Economic implications for graziers operat-
ing within the Armidale Pastures
Protection Board. Unpublished
B.Ag.Econ. thesis, University of New
England, Armidale.
Schlinder, C. (1974) Wild pigs and wildlife.
Pastoral Review 84: 605–606.
Schoener, T.W. (1971) Theory of feeding
strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 2: 369–404.
Scrivner, J.H. and Wade, D.A. (1986) The
1080 livestock protection collar for preda-
tor control. Rangelands 8: 103–106.
Seawright, A.A. (1989) Animal Health in
Australia. Volume 2. Chemical and Plant
Poisons. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Seddon, H.R. (1965a) Diseases of Domestic
Animals in Australia. Part 5. Bacterial
Diseases. Volume I. Department of Health
Publication No. 9, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Seddon, H.R. (1965b) Diseases of Domestic
Animals in Australia. Part 5. Bacterial
Diseases. Volume II. Department of Health
Publication No. 10, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Seddon, H.R. (1966) Diseases of Domestic
Animals in Australia. Part 4. Protozoan
and Viral Diseases. Department of Health
Publication No. 8, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Seddon, H.R. (1967) Diseases of Domestic
Animals in Australia. Part 2. Arthropod
Infestations (Flies, Lice and Fleas).
Department of Health Publication No. 6,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Seddon, H.R. (1968) Diseases of Domestic
Animals in Australia. Part 3. Arthropod
Infestations (Ticks and Mites. Animals,
Insects and other Agents harmful to
Stock). Department of Health Publication
No. 7, Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
Seddon, H.R. and Albiston, H.E. (1967)
Diseases of Domestic Animals in
Australia. Part 1. Helminth infestations.
Department of Health Publication No. 5,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Shepherd, N.C. (1981) Predation of red kan-
garoos, Macropus rufus, by the dingo,
Canis familiaris dingo (Blumenbach), in
north-western New South Wales.
Australian Wildlife Research 8: 255–262.
Sinclair, A.R.E. (1989) Population regulation
in animals. J.M. Cherrett (ed.) Ecological
Concepts. Symposium of the British
Ecological Society of London (1989):
197–241.
Sinden, J.A. and Worrell, A.C. (1979)
Unpriced Values: Decisions Without
Market Places. Wiley-Interscience, New
York.
Smith, A.P., Moore, D.M. and Andrews, S.P.
(1992) Proposed Forestry Operations in
the Glen Innes Forest Management Area:
Fauna Impact Statement. Forestry
Commission of New South Wales, Sydney.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 153

Smith, M.J. (1990) The role of bounties in
pest management with special reference
to state dingo control programs.
Unpublished Ass.Dip.Appl.Sc. thesis,
Charles Sturt University – Riverina, Wagga
Wagga.
Smith, W.P., Borden, D.L. and Endres, K.M.
(1994) Scent-station visits as an index to
abundance of raccoons: an experimental
manipulation. Journal of Mammalogy 75:
637–647.
Soulé, M.E., Bolger, D.T., Alberts, A.C.,
Wright, J., M., S. and Hill, S. (1988)
Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinc-
tions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban
habitat islands. Conservation Biology 2:
75–92.
Southwell, C.N. (1987) Macropod studies at
Wallaby Creek. II. Density and distribution
of macropod species in relation to envi-
ronmental variables. Australian Wildlife
Research 14: 15–33.
Spira, H.R (1988) ‘Small companion animal
reproduction behaviour and breeding’ in:
Reproduction small companion animals:
Proceedings of the J.D Stewart Memorial
Refresher Course for Veterinarians,
Sydney, No. 108, 8–12 August 1988,
University of Sydney.
Stafford-Smith, D.M. and Foran, B.D. (1990)
Rangepack: the philosophy underlying
the development of a micro-computer-
based decision support system for pas-
toral land management. Journal of
Biogeography 17: 541–546.
Stains, H.J. (1975) Distribution and taxono-
my of the Canidae. Pp. 3–26 in: M.W. Fox
(ed.) The Wild Canids: Their Systematics,
Behavioural Ecology and Evolution.
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Sullivan, N.T., Rudder, T.H. and Holmes,
W.E. (1992) Impact of younger turnoff on
the profitability and structure of cattle
herds. M.T. Sullivan (ed.) Changing beef
markets — should north Queensland pro-
ducers change management to meet
them? Proceedings of the Australian
Society of Animal Production 19: 53–54.
Tauchmann, A. (1998) Aversive conditioning
trial on dingoes using lithium chloride and
thiabendazole. Unpublished report to the
Queensland Department of Environment,
Gatton College, University of Queensland.
Thompson, J. (1993) Report to the Vertebrate
Pests Committee (VPC) on the national
standardisation of ‘1080’ dose rates for
wild dog and fox baits. Department of
Lands, Brisbane.
Thompson, J.A. (1994) The management of
red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the northern
tablelands of New South Wales.
Unpublished M.Res.Sc. thesis, University
of New England, Armidale.
Thompson, J.A. and Fleming, P.J.S. (1991)
The cost of aerial baiting for wild dog
management in north-eastern New South
Wales. Australian Rangelands Journal 13:
47–56.
Thompson, J.A. and Fleming, P.J.S. (1994)
Evaluation of the efficacy of 1080 poison-
ing of red foxes using visitation to non-
toxic baits as an index of fox abundance.
Wildlife Research 21: 27–39.
Thompson, J.A., Fleming, P.J.S. and Heap,
E.W. (1990) The accuracy of aerial baiting
for wild dog control in New South Wales.
Australian Wildlife Research 17: 209–217.
Thompson, R.C.A., Lymberry, A.J., Hobbs,
R.B. and Elliot, A.D. (1988) Hydatid dis-
ease in urban areas of Western Australia:
an unusual cycle involving western grey
kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus), feral
pigs and domestic dogs. Australian
Veterinary Journal 65: 188–190.
Thomson, A.R. (1870) Guide to Australian
Remains Exhibited by the Trustees of the
Australian Museum. Australian Museum,
Sydney.
Thomson, P.C. (1984a) Dingoes and sheep in
pastoral areas. Journal of Agriculture
Western Australia 25: 27–31.
Thomson, P.C. (1984b) The use of buffer
zones in dingo control. Journal of
Agriculture Western Australia 25: 32–33.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
154

Thomson, P.C. (1986) The effectiveness of
aerial baiting for the control of dingoes in
north-western Australia. Australian
Wildlife Research 13: 165–176.
Thomson, P.C. (1992a) The behavioural ecol-
ogy of dingoes in north-western Australia.
I. The Fortescue River study area and
details of captured dingoes. Wildlife
Research 19: 509–518.
Thomson, P.C. (1992b) The behavioural
ecology of dingoes in north-western
Australia. II. Activity patterns, breeding
season and pup rearing. Wildlife Research
19: 519–530.
Thomson, P.C. (1992c) The behavioural ecol-
ogy of dingoes in north-western Australia.
III. Hunting and feeding behaviour, and
diet. Wildlife Research 19: 531–542.
Thomson, P.C. (1992d) The behavioural ecolo-
gy of dingoes in north-western Australia. IV.
Social and spatial organisation, and move-
ments. Wildlife Research 19: 543–564.
Thomson, P.C. and Marsack, P.R. (1992) Aerial
baiting of dingoes in arid pastoral areas with
reference to rabies control. Pp. 125–134 in:
P. O'Brien and G. Berry (eds) Wildlife
Rabies Contingency Planning in Australia.
Bureau of Rural Resources Proceedings
Number 11, Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra.
Thomson, P.C. and Rose, K. (1992) Age
determination of dingoes from character-
istics of canine teeth. Wildlife Research 19:
597–600.
Thomson, P.C., Rose, K. and Kok, N.E.
(1992a) The behavioural ecology of din-
goes in north-western Australia. VI.
Temporary extra-territorial movements
and dispersal. Wildlife Research 19:
585–596.
Thomson, P.C., Rose, K. and Kok, N.E.
(1992b) The behavioural ecology of din-
goes in north-western Australia. V.
Population dynamics and variation in the
social system. Wildlife Research 19:
565–584.
Thorne, A. and Raymond, R. (1989) Man on
the Rim: The Peopling of the Pacific.
Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Titcombe, M. (1969) Dog and Man in the
Ancient Pacific. Bernice P. Bishop Museum
Special Publication 59, Honolulu.
Tomlinson, A.R. (1954) Aerial baiting against
wild dogs and foxes in Western Australia.
Journal of Agriculture Western Australia
3: 37–49.
Tomlinson, A.R. (1958a) Bonuses for vermin
control. Journal of Agriculture Western
Australia 4: 465–469.
Tomlinson, A.R. (1958b) Wild dog control.
Vermin Control Conference Perth 1–11.
Tomlinson, A.R. and Blair, C.K. (1952) Wild
dog investigations. The Warburton Ranges
area—22 July to 29 August 1952. Journal
of Agriculture Western Australia 1:
883–893.
Triggs, B., Brunner, H. and Cullen, J.M.
(1984) The food of the fox, dog and cat in
Croajingalong National Park, south-east-
ern Victoria. Australian Wildlife Research
11: 491–499.
Troughton, E. (1957) A new native dog from
the Papuan highlands. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of New South Wales
(1955–56): 93–94.
Twigg, L., Eldridge, S., Shakeshaft, B.,
Edwards, G., de Preu, N. and Adams, N.
(1999) Longevity of 1080 meat baits in
central Australia. Unpublished final report
to National Feral Animal Control Program,
Bureau of Rural Sciences.
Twyford, K. (1994a) Fraser Island dingo
management plan: Community Education
Program. Unpublished Draft Report to the
Department of Environment, Queensland.
Twyford, K. (1994b) Investigations into the
diet of dingoes on Fraser Island.
Unpublished Second Interim Report to the
Department of Environment, Queensland.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 155

Tyndale-Biscoe, H. (1994) The CRC for
Biological Control of Vertebrate Pest
Populations: fertility control of wildlife for
conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology
1: 160–162.
Van Valkenburgh, B. and Koepfli, K.P. (1993)
Cranial adaptations to predation in canids.
N. Dunstan and M.L. Gorman (eds)
Mammals as Predators. Symposium of the
Zoological Society of London 65: 15–37.
Wagner, K.K., Schmidt, R.H. and Conover,
M.R. (1997) Compensation programs for
wildlife damage in North America.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 312–319.
Walker, B.H. and Noy-Meir, I. (1982) Aspects
of the stability and resilience of savanna
ecosystems. Pp. 556–590 in: B.J. Huntly
and B.H. Walker (eds) Ecology of Tropical
Savannas. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Walters, C.J. (1986) Adaptive management
of renewable resources. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Walters, C.J. and Holling, C.S. (1990) Large-
scale management experiments and learn-
ing by doing. Ecology 71: 2060–2068.
Wamsley, J. (1998) Rehabilitate for what?
Workshop on Fauna Habitat
Reconstruction After Mining, Adelaide,
10–11 October 1997:166–144.
Ward, F.G. (1986) The Vanishing Dogman.
James Yeates Printing, Australia.
Wells, M.C. and Bekoff, M. (1981) An obser-
vational study of scent-marking in coy-
otes, Canis latrans. Animal Behaviour 29:
332–350.
White, I.M. (1972) Hunting dogs at Yalata.
Mankind 8: 201–205.
White, J.P. and O'Connell, J.F. (1982) A
Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea and
Sahul. Academic Press, Sydney.
Whitehouse, S. (1977) The diet of the dingo
in Western Australia. Australian Wildlife
Research 4: 145–150.
Wilks, L. (1990) A Survey of the Contingent
Valuation Method. Resource Assessment
Commission Research Paper 2, Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Williams, J.M. (1993) The factors and forces
shaping rabbit control policies and prac-
tices in New Zealand: what lessons for the
future? Pp. 42–50 in: B.D. Cooke (ed.)
Australian Rabbit Control Conference.
Anti-rabbit Research Foundation of
Australia, Adelaide.
Williams, K., Parer, I., Coman, B., Burley, J. and
Braysher, M. (1995) Managing Vertebrate
Pests: Rabbits. Bureau of Resource Sciences,
Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Wilton, A. N., Steward, D. J. and Zafiris, K.
(1999). Microsatellite variation in the
Australian dingo. Journal of Heredity 90:
108–111.
Wong, D.H., Kirkpatrick, W.E., Kinnear, J.E.
and King, D.R. (1991) Defluorination of
sodium fluoroacetate (1080) by microor-
ganisms found in bait material. Wildlife
Research 18: 539–545.
Woodall, P.F. (1983) Distribution and popula-
tion dynamics of dingoes (Canis famil-
iaris) and feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in
Queensland, 1945–1976. Journal of
Applied Ecology 20: 85–95.
Woodall, P.F., Pavlov, P. and Twyford, K.L.
(1996) Dingoes in Queensland: skull
dimensions and the identity of wild
canids. Wildlife Research 23: 581–587.
Wright, S.M. (1993) Observations of the
behaviour of male eastern grey kangaroos
when attacked by dingoes. Wildlife
Research 20: 845–849.
Zimen, E. (1976) On the regulation of pack size
in wolves. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 40:
300–341.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
156

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 157
Appendix A: Parasites and pathogens recorded from wild dogs in
Australia (after Corbett 1995a) and their potential effects on
wildlife, humans and livestock (after Kelly 1977).
Organism
Cestodes
Echinococcus
granulosus
Taenia ovis
Taenia hydatigena
Taenia pisiformis
Taenia serialis
Dipylidium caninum
Spirometra erinacei
Undetermined
species
Locality
recorded
Queensland
NE NSW
SE Highlands
Probably widespread
at very low levels
SE Highlands
Central Australia
SE Highlands
SE Highlands
Queensland
SE Highlands
Queensland
Central Australia
SE Coastal
North Australia
Barkly Tableland
Site of
infection
Affects
humans?
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
Affects
wildlife?
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
?
yes
Affects
livestock?
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
Tapeworms
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Small intestine
Nematodes
Uncinaria
stenocephala
Ancylostoma
caninum
Undetermined
species
SE Highlands
SE Highlands
Queensland
SE Coastal
North Australia
yes
yes
no no
no
no
no
no
no
Hookworms
Small intestine
Small intestine
Stomach/
intestine

Bureau of Rural Sciences
158
Organism
Toxacara canis
Undetermined
species
Dirofilaria immitis
Oslerus osleri
Trichurus vulpis
Locality
recorded
SE Highlands
Central Australia
North Australia
North Australia
Barkly Tableland
SE Highlands
SE Highlands
SE Highlands
Site of
infection
Affects
humans?
yes
no
yes
no
no
Affects
wildlife?
no
no
no
no
no
Affects
livestock?
no
no
no
no
no
Roundworms
Heartworm
Lungworm
Whipworm
Small intestine
Small intestine
Right ventricle
and pulmonary
artery
Trachea
Caecum and
large intestine
Acanthacephala
sp. Barkly Tableland no no no
Thorn-headed
worm
Stomach
Cyathospirura
dasyuridis
SE Highlands no yes no
Spiruroid
Alimentary tract
Viruses
Protozoa
Paramyxovirus
Canine Hepatitis
Adenovirus
Isospora rivolta
Eimeria canis
Central Australia
Barkly Tableland
Central Australia
Barkly Tableland
SE Highlands
SE Highlands
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Canine distemper
Coccidia
Respiratory
tract
Liver
Alimentary tract
Nematodes

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 159
Organism
Protozoa
Sarocystis
sp.
Giardia
sp.
Locality
recorded
Queensland
SE Coastal
SE Coastal
Site of
infection
Affects
humans?
no
yes
Affects
wildlife?
?
?
Affects
livestock?
?
?
Sarcosporida
Giardia
Insects
Striated muscle
and heart muscle
Gastrointestinal
system
Undetermined
speices
Barkly Tableland
Central Australia
no no no
Skin
Trichodectes canis
SE Australia no no no
Biting lice
Skin
Ctenocephalides
canis
Probably
widespread
yes no no
Fleas
Skin
Ctenocephalides
felis
Echidnophaga
myrmecobii
Undetermined
species
Probably
widespread
Central Australia
Barkly Tableland
North Australia
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
noSkin
Skin
Skin
(Tabanidae)
Kangaroo flies
Widespread yes yes yes
Marchflies
Skin
(Hippoboscidae) SE Coastal no no no
Skin
Mosquitoes
(Culicidae) Widespread yes yes yes
Skin
Blowflies
(Calliphoridae) Widespread no no yes
Wounds

Bureau of Rural Sciences
160
Organism Locality
recorded
Site of
infection
Affects
humans?
Affects
wildlife?
Affects
livestock?
Ticks
Ixodes holocyclus
SE Coastal high-
lands
yes yes yesSkin
Rhipicephalus
sanguineus
Central Australia
North Australia
no no ?
Skin
Amblyomma
triguttatum
Queensland no yes ?
Skin
Mites
Sarcoptes scabieri
Widespread yes yes no
Sarcoptic mange
Pentastome
Arthropod
Skin
Linguatula serrata
SE Australia
Central Qld
no ??
Tongueworm
Nasal cavities
Fungus
Microsporum canis
Central Australia yes yes yes
Ringworm
Skin
Leech
Hirudo
sp.SE Highlands yes yes yesSkin
Demodex
folliculorum
Central Australia yes no no
Demodectic mange
Sebaceous
glands and skin
follicles around
eyes and nose

(after Andrew 1999)
The following recommendations, combined
with available extension materials, will help
wild dog management coordinators incorpo-
rate effective education and extension into
their programs. The recommendations are
drawn from pest animal projects that were sup-
ported under the Bureau of Resource Sciences’
Vertebrate Pest Program (1993–1996) and are
aimed at government officers, researchers,
extension officers and community members
involved in group management. The recom-
mendations are not in priority order although
they have been grouped so that similar issues
are listed together.
1. Wild dog management is essentially a
social issue.
While it is true that effective management of
wild dogs requires a certain baseline of sci-
entific and technical information, the actual
process of management is a social one
involving the ideas, activities and relation-
ships of landholders and agency representa-
tives. This means that there is often no pre-
dictable and generalisable right or wrong
answer to questions to do with management.
The values and views of people should be
considered and debated as part of the pro-
cess of management.
2. Agency representatives who deal with
landholders need to have personal quali-
ties, commitment and experience that are
respected by the landholders they are
working with. It is also important that
agency representatives see their interac-
tions with landholders as long-term rela-
tionships. Many landholders have seen a
‘turnover’ of government staff and exten-
sion officers and they sometimes have to
repeat the same messages to consecutive
government representatives. Agency repre-
sentatives also need to respect the personal
qualities and experience of landholders.
This is perhaps one of the most crucial
aspects of a project which involves different
interest groups. Relationships between peo-
ple are complex and interpersonal relation-
ships are central to the success of projects.
Projects and working arrangements can stall
or fail because of personal clashes.
Persistence and patience, conflict resolution
abilities and a sense of humour are important
attributes of good extension officers and
other government officers. Extension and
other government officers involved in land
management issues need to develop and
sustain a genuine level of familiarity and
trust with the landholders that they seek to
support. This genuine familiarity and trust
takes time to develop. Landholders live with-
in social settings with often long-established
communication patterns. It is unrealistic to
expect to be able to gain worthwhile insights
into a social setting with a single, short visit.
3. Most projects and programs need to
be conducted over long periods.
Consequently, project managers need to
be responsive to change.
Most farmers and graziers view their enter-
prise as a long-term business. Many are third,
fourth or even fifth generation property
owners and consider the significance of their
decisions and practices on their children and
grandchildren. Some see governments as
only being interested in the short-term and
with little commitment to the long-term via-
bility of the agricultural sector. Projects need
to reflect a commitment to long-term out-
comes and must consider changes that occur
within government sectors and farming and
grazing communities.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 161
Appendix B: Getting the best out of extension:
20 recommendations to help integrate education and
extension into wild dog management

4. Landholders are ultimately responsible
for ‘on the ground’ decisions about land
management involving their land. In
the long run, landholders will determine
whether programs and actions succeed
or fail.
Wild dog management within the agricultural
sector is mainly the responsibility of land-
holders. Therefore they must have a major
role in decision making if strategies are to be
successful. Nevertheless, they do need to
actively consult other groups and individuals
with a major interest in the management of
wild dogs.
5. Management options for wild dogs must
be seen to be practical by landholders.
Wild dog management options must be realis-
tic with regard to equipment, labour require-
ments and cost-effectiveness, and should fit
within routine farm operations. These are the
practical considerations that landholders face
on a daily basis but are often overlooked by
researchers and/or agency representatives
who have different timetables.
6. Encourage the involvement of all stake-
holders.
It is important to attempt to involve anyone
who is interested in land management issues
and also to attempt to seek opinions from a
wide range of community and other groups.
Individuals within a community have diverse
talents, interests and experience. Managers of
different enterprises bring different perspec-
tives to resource management issues. Women
have contributed greatly to changes within
rural communities and it is now acknowledged
that they are equal partners in many rural
enterprises. Elder members of communities
should not be forgotten, as they often know
more about a particular district than anyone
else. Different cultural groups and individuals
often have different traditional ways of know-
ing and different ways of doing things that
bring a greater range of possible solutions to
land management problems. Children also can
become involved in projects through clubs,
schools or through local events and activities. If
funds are available, consider using an indepen-
dent facilitator to manage diverse views or to
bring diverse views together.
7. Identify and work with key players in
the community.
Within communities there are many
landowners who are respected for their land
management expertise and innovation.
These people are often leaders in their com-
munity. Working with these people will help
gain an insider’s view of local land manage-
ment issues.
8. Land management issues attract a
range of views: expect and respect diver-
sity of opinion.
It is not reasonable to expect all landholders
and agency representatives to agree on any
given issue. Aim for a give and take arrange-
ment and value argument: it is a good way of
finding out what people want and feel about
an issue. It is reasonable for some people to
concede on some points but not on others.
9. The scientific community, supported by
government, should provide accessible
information. They should also involve
landholders and agency representatives
in research and data collection.
Pest animal management requires support
information from research agencies and from
landholders. If research is to have practical
outcomes then it should include landholder
information as part of the research process.
Researchers should not regard landholders
as just data collectors. They have an essential
role in ensuring that the research is testing
practical management options. Landholders
observations may also provide useful direc-
tions for research.
10. The rights of individual land ownership
should be respected and data collected
from properties should be treated confi-
dentially.
Landholders have the right to privacy and to
respect of both their land and ‘intellectual’
property rights. Release of data identifying
individual landowners should be negotiated
with those landowners in the first instance.
Usually, it is the pooled information that is of
most value to researchers and agency repre-
sentatives so that individual landholders are
not identified.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
162

11. Landholders and others often respond
differently to written information and
questionnaires than to conversations.
This may simply be because landholders’
usual medium of communication is through
conversation rather than writing. This point
is important to remember when collecting
data about peoples’ opinions on land man-
agement issues.
12. Sustained direct communication is the
most valued and effective form of con-
veying and receiving perspectives on the
management of wild dogs.
Talking one-to-one with people is the most
effective way of getting people involved and
maintaining their involvement in a program.
Newsletters, field days, local shed meetings,
media promotion and talks at local meetings
are also encouraged.
13. Access to information should be efficient
and easy.
All people in a community should be
informed about and able to access informa-
tion associated with land management pro-
jects that is relevant to their district.
Information could be presented via a num-
ber of different means such as: local media,
newsletters, mail-outs, presentations at meet-
ings and informal gatherings. Individuals
and groups should be provided with a con-
tact list of people with various types of
expertise and knowledge that they can call
upon if required (for example, indigenous,
historical, scientific, financial etc).
14. Consider ways of getting information to
the wider community and other interest-
ed groups.
Many cheap and easily accessible information
channels exist to inform other people about
projects. Local media will often respond to a
story involving local landholders. Displays and
notices on bulletin boards and notice boards at
local stores, halls and at special events will
help spread the news. Write stories for
Landcare and other rural newsletters and write
to or give talks at meetings of other groups in
the district. Word-of-mouth is one of the most
important ways of spreading the word about
local projects.
15. Frequent, organised meetings that
involve committed representatives from
all stakeholder groups are necessary if
‘on the ground’ change is expected as
an outcome.
Information about the issues to be discussed
should be circulated to all stakeholders well
ahead of meetings so that representatives
may consult with and receive advice from
their constituents. Representatives should be
people within an organisation or district who
have a commitment to consultation and who
will give feedback to the people whose
views they represent.
The management group size should be
determined by the ability of those taking the
main responsibility for pest management
(those representing stakeholders) to feed-
back information on a regular basis and
receive responses from others and to meet
any queries from those whom they repre-
sent. Mechanisms for informing all people
should be clearly thought out so that repre-
sentatives do not merely ‘rubber-stamp’ pro-
posals and actions that their constituents
may not know about.
16. Meetings should always have a clear
purpose that relates to the needs of land-
holders. They should be held at times
that suit landholder schedules.
The best meetings are those that reflect wild
dog management developments that have
occurred on the ground between meetings,
rather than those that can be perceived as
purely paper exercises. Meetings should also
be held at times that are negotiated with
landholders. This includes consideration of
seasonal work, day of the week, time of day,
and length of the meeting. Try to tie wild dog
management meetings into existing meet-
ings such as landcare and bushfire meetings.
Often a social event such as barbecue is a
useful way of bringing people together. This
also gives people time to discuss issues in a
relaxed atmosphere.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 163

17. Wild dog management practices need to
be viewed within a broader legal and
policy context.
Governments at all levels should provide
broader framework considerations (for exam-
ple Ecologically Sustainable Development,
biological diversity, legislative requirements)
within which on the ground pest management
practices can be located and to which they can
contribute. Plain language versions of these
policy statements should be made readily
available to all participants.
18. All costs and benefits need to be
considered.
Whatever technique is used to calculate costs
and benefits it should be remembered that dif-
ferent managers have different concerns and
priorities. Many aspects of land management
and broader lifestyle interests have values that
are difficult to quantify in monetary terms and
cannot necessarily be generalised. A common
difficulty with attempts at cost–benefit analysis
is the time it takes and the complexity of some
formulas that seem irrelevant to landholders.
This is so, particularly for those who consider
that the impact of any pest is worth managing
or, at the other extreme, those that are com-
pletely uninterested in pest management
regardless of the demonstrated economic ben-
efit.
19. The pain and suffering of animals
should be considered in decision making.
Ethical considerations are an aspect of pest
animal management that cannot be ignored.
Many methods of pest management
inevitably inflict pain and suffering on ani-
mals. Discussion about this issue and rele-
vant information about various management
methods must be considered as part of any
pest animal management project if these
methods are to be regarded as best practice.
The most humane methods available should
be preferred.
20. Cultural and heritage issues should be
considered in decision making.
Many land management decisions affect cul-
tural and heritage sites. Consideration must
be given to the relationship between cultural
and economic interests as part of any pest
animal project.
Some suggested extension materials
a. National pest management guidelines
including this publication. Other guide-
lines are available for rabbits, foxes, feral
goats, feral pigs, rodents, feral horses
and carp.
Australia’s Pest Animals: New Solutions to
Old Problems (Olsen 1998)
New Approaches to Managing Pest Animals
(an extension folder)
These are available from the Bureau of Rural
Sciences in Canberra (internet:
http://www.affa.gov.au/outputs/ruralscience.html).
b. State and Territory agriculture and con-
servation departments provide factsheets
on various pest animal issues.
c. Specific local information can be obtained
from regional agricultural protection offi-
cer and/or park service.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
164

Peter Fleming
Peter Fleming is a senior research officer
with the Vertebrate Pest Research Unit of
NSW Agriculture. Since 1983, he has studied
the impacts and management of flying foxes,
bird pests, European red foxes, feral pigs
and feral goats. Most of Peter’s research has
been in the highlands of eastern New South
Wales where he is primarily interested in
assessing the impacts of wild dogs on live-
stock production and the improvement of
management strategies for wild canids. Peter
has published over 60 research and exten-
sion articles about vertebrate pests. He is
currently researching the interactions of feral
goats and domestic livestock for exotic dis-
ease contingency planning, and is also
responsible for an integrated program for
wild dog management in south-eastern New
South Wales and the Australian Capital
Territory.
Laurie Corbett
Dr Laurie Corbett is a specialist in ecosystem
assessment and management with over 30
years field experience studying the ecology
of vertebrate predators and their prey, fire
ecology and the management of feral ani-
mals. He has extensive knowledge of canids,
felids, raptors and reptiles in Australia,
Scotland and south-east Asia and is recog-
nised as a world authority on dingoes. He is
the author or co-author of more than 140
publications, of which over 50 specifically
relate to wild dogs. Formerly with the CSIRO
Division of Wildlife & Ecology, Dr Corbett is
currently a principal ecologist with EWL
Sciences Pty Ltd, based in Darwin.
Robert Harden
Robert Harden is the Vertebrate Pests Team
Leader in the Biodiversity Research Group of
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. He
has more than 30 years of research experi-
ence of the ecology and management of wild
dogs in the eastern highlands of NSW and
has published many research and extension
articles on vertebrate pest management. His
recent research includes the development of
management strategies for introduced
rodents on Lord Howe Island, the rehabilita-
tion of the Lord Howe Island woodhen, the
management of feral goat impact in the east-
ern highlands of NSW and the impact of fox
baiting on spotted-tailed quolls.
Peter Thomson
Peter Thomson is a research scientist with
over 20 years field experience working on
the ecology and management of canids in
Australia. Much of his career was devoted to
a long-term study of dingoes in the north-
west and Nullarbor areas of WA, and in more
recent years, to various studies relating to the
control of foxes. He has published numerous
articles and scientific papers on dingoes and
foxes. He leads the Vertebrate Pest Research
group of Agriculture Western Australia and is
currently involved in studies on a number of
different pests.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 165
Appendix C: Authors’ biographies

ANKC Australian National Kennel
Council
ANZFAS Australian and New Zealand
Federation of Animal
Societies
APB Agriculture Protection Board
(Western Australia)
APCC Animal and Plant Control
Commission, South Australia
AGWEST Agriculture Western
Australia
BRS Bureau of Rural Sciences
(formerly Bureau of
Resource Sciences)
CALMWA Department of Conservation
and Land Management
(Western Australia)
CPUE Catch-per-unit-effort
CWR Critical Weight Range
(mammals weighing
35–5500 grams)
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
ESD Ecologically Sustainable
Development
GPS Global positioning system
NERDA New England Rural
Development Association
NFACP National Feral Animal
Control Program (a NHT
program)
NHT Natural Heritage Trust
NLP National Landcare Program
NPWS National Parks and Wildlife
Service (New South Wales)
PWC Parks and Wildlife
Commission (Northern
Territory)
QDNR Department of Natural
Resources (Queensland)
RLPB Rural Lands Protection
Board (New South Wales)
RSPCA Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (Australia)
SCARM Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Resource
Management
s.d. Standard deviation
SDP Stochastic dynamic pro-
gramming
VPC Vertebrate Pests Committee
WDCA Wild Dog Control
Association (New South
Wales)
WDDB Wild Dog Destruction Board
(western New South Wales)
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 167
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1080: Sodium fluoroacetate. An acute
metabolic poison without antidote;
particularly toxic to canids.
Bait: Attractive substance fed to pest animals
that can be used to carry a poison or
contraceptive or to lure animals into traps.
Bait mound: Specialised bait station where
bait is buried in the centre of a mound of
friable soil to minimise bait removal by
non-target animals.
Bait station: A specific site used for the
repeated placement of bait.
Biocontrol (biological control): Control of
pest populations using a specific
biological agent such as a virus, bacterium
or predator (for example, myxomatosis).
Biodiversity: Biological diversity. The
natural diversity of living things, usually
defined at three levels: genetic, species
and ecosystem.
Blastocyst: Early, multicellular stage of
embryo development in marsupials at
which development is postponed. Delayed
implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus
allows birth to correspond with seasonal
flushes of food or the loss of an embryo or
pouch young.
Bounty (bonus): Predetermined reward paid
on presentation of evidence (for example,
scalp) of the destruction of an animal (for
example, wild dog).
Canid: A member of the family Canidae
comprising 13 species of wolves, jackals,
dogs and foxes.
Carnivore: A flesh-eating animal or a
member of the Order Carnivora.
Carnivora: Order of mammals including
wolves, dogs, foxes, otters, cats, weasels,
bears, raccoons, civets and hyenas.
Carrying capacity: Density of an uncon-
trolled population of animals that is in equi-
librium with their natural resources and
competitors.
Chromosome: Threadlike structure in the
nucleus of a cell which carries the genetic
material (genes) of heredity.
Commensal dogs: Wild dogs (including
dingoes, domestic breeds and hybrids)
living in close association with but inde-
pendently of humans (for example,
dingoes foraging in rubbish bins at
camping grounds on Fraser Island).
Competition: A number of organisms of the
same or different species using common
resources that are in short supply (exploita-
tion competition), or organisms seeking a
common and abundant resource harming
each other in the process (interference
competition).
Conservation values: Values attributed to
maintaining biodiversity, including the
preservation of viable populations of native
species and natural communities over their
natural range, preservation of wilderness
and prevention of land degradation.
Conspecific: A member of the same species.
Contingent value: The unpriced value that
people place on maintaining things such
as open space, clean air and endangered
species. The social value of these things is
often poorly represented by the market
value of the land where they occur.
Contingent value can be estimated by ask-
ing consumers of their willingness to pay
to maintain a resource.
Correlation: Statistical relationship between
two or more variables where a change in
one variable is reflected in a proportional
change in the other.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 169
Glossary

Critical weight range (CWR) mammals:
Australian mammals with live weights
between 35 grams and 5500 grams that
are believed to be more vulnerable to
extinction by predation.
Curvilinear relationship: Curved line rela-
tionship between two or more variables.
Demographics: Statistics relating to popu-
lation dynamics, including birth rates,
mortality rates, age and sex ratios.
Density dependence: Regulation of the
size of a population by mechanisms that
tend to retard population growth as densi-
ty increases and enhance population
growth as density declines.
Dingoes: Native dogs of Asia selected by
humans from wolves. Present in Australia
before domestic dogs. Pure dingoes are
populations or individuals that have not
hybridised with domestic dogs or hybrids.
Discount rate: The rate used to calculate
the present value of future benefits or
costs. It is calculated using the reverse
equation to that used to calculate interest
rates on invested money.
Dispersal: Movement of an animal away
from its birth or breeding site.
Dispersion: The spatial pattern of a popula-
tion of organisms relative to one another.
Distribution: The geographical area (range)
in which a group of organisms occurs.
Diurnal: Active during the day.
DNA: (deoxyribonucleic acid) The genetic
material in the cells of most living organ-
isms, which is a major constituent of the
chromosomes in the cell nucleus.
DNA fingerprinting (or mapping): A
technique in which an individual's DNA is
analysed to reveal the pattern of genetic
material within particular segments. This
pattern is claimed to be unique to individ-
uals, and closely related individuals have
similar patterns.
Dogger, dogman: A pest controller who
specialises in the removal of wild dogs,
usually by trapping or shooting.
Domestic dogs: Dog breeds (other than
dingoes) selected by humans, initially
from wolves, that usually live in associa-
tion with humans. This selection process
is ongoing.
Ecosystem: Ecological system formed by
interaction of living things and their envi-
ronment.
Efficacy: Ability to produce desired effects.
Efficiency: The accomplishment of desired
effects in relation to the effort (or cost)
expended to produce those effects (often
expressed as a rate).
Endangered species: Species in danger of
extinction and whose survival is unlikely
if causal threatening processes continue to
operate.
Endemic: Limited to a certain region, coun-
try or group.
Endemic disease: Disease that occurs in a
region or country.
Eradication: Permanent removal of all indi-
viduals of a species from a defined area.
Exotic: Introduced from another country
(for example, exotic species).
Exotic disease: Disease that does not occur
in a region or country.
Extant: Still existing; not destroyed or extinct.
Extrapolation: Interpreting data beyond the
dimensions within which it is collected (for
example, assuming conclusions drawn from
data collected in one region will be relevant
elsewhere).
Fecundity: The number of live births over
an interval of time.
Feral: Domesticated species that has estab-
lished a wild population.
Feral dogs: Wild-living dogs of domestic
breeds.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
170

Fertility: The ability to produce young.
Free-roaming dogs: Dogs that are owned by
humans but not always restrained and so
are free to travel away from their owner’s
residence (includes commensal dogs).
Friable: [Soil that is] easily crumbled.
Functional response: Relationship
between per capita food intake rate and
food availability.
Genotype: Genetic constitution of an
organism.
Gestation: Pregnancy.
Global positioning system (GPS): Small
device that uses satellite signals to accu-
rately locate the user’s position (latitude,
longitude and altitude).
Gregarious: Living in groups.
Home range: Area that an animal (or group of
animals) ranges over during normal daily
activities. The boundaries of the home range
may be marked (for example, wild dogs use
scent marks) and may (see territory) or may
not be defended, depending on species.
Howl up: Wild dogs are lured to a hunter
imitating the howling of a dingo.
Hybrids: Progeny resulting from the cross-
breeding of two different species or sub-
species and the descendants of crossbred
progeny (for example, dogs resulting
from crossbreeding of a dingo and a
domestic dog).
Hydatidosis: Disease caused by hydatid
worm (Echinococcus granulosus) infec-
tion.
Immunocontraception: A form of fertility
control where a substance that triggers an
immune reaction causes sterility or
reduced fertility in affected animals.
Indices of abundance: Field signs that can
give a relative measure of dog abundance
(for example, howls, fresh droppings,
tracks, bait acceptance).
Ingested: Taken orally.
Intangibles: Values that cannot be numeri-
cally quantified (for example, that for
which it is difficult to estimate a money
value).
Interference competition: see Competition.
Isopleth: A line drawn on a map through
points having the same numerical value
for any element (for example, an isobar
joins points with the same barometric
pressure).
Karyotype: Number and structure (gene
sequence) of the chromosomes in the
nucleus of a cell. All the cells in an indi-
vidual have the same karyotype (except
for sperm and egg cells).
Latent period: The time lag between an
action and a response.
LD50:Dose (per kilogram of body weight)
that will, on average, kill 50% of treated
animals.
LD100:Dose (per kilogram of body weight)
that will, on average, kill 100% of treated
animals.
Linear programming: A mathematical
modelling approach that uses simultane-
ous linear equations for optimising deci-
sions under resource limitations. A linear
programming problem has a linear objec-
tive function (for example, to maximise
whole-farm gross margins from livestock
production) and a set of linear constraints
(for example, the density of wild dogs,
enterprise type, labour and capital
resources) arranged in an array.
Linear relationship: Straight-line relation-
ship between two or more variables.
Lure: Attractant (usually an odour-producing
substance) which is used to enhance the
effectiveness of baiting programs or to
attract an animal to a trap site.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 171

M-44 ejector: mechanical ejector for delivering
encapsulated toxin to canids. The device is
triggered by the canid pulling on bait materi-
al connected to the ejector. This releases a
compressed spring within the ejector which
drives a rod through a toxin capsule, pro-
pelling the contents of the capsule into the
animal's mouth. The advantages of this sys-
tem are that devices can be left loaded as
sentinel stations, without degradation of the
toxin over time. The pull pressure can also
be adjusted so that it is only likely to be trig-
gered by canids and the device ensures that
the full complement of toxin is ingested to
reduce sub-lethal poisoning.
Marginal benefits: The shift in benefit val-
ues that occur as incremental changes are
made in the factor(s) which affect level of
benefits (for example, changes to live-
stock losses that occur as wild dog density
is reduced).
Marginal costs: The shift in cost values that
occur as incremental changes are made in
the factor(s) which affect level of costs
(for example, changes in the cost of find-
ing and removing an extra wild dog that
occur as wild dog density is reduced).
Mark–recapture: Technique of live catch-
ing, tagging, releasing and then recaptur-
ing animals, and using a formula to esti-
mate population size from the proportion
of recaptured animals that are tagged.
Market failure: Occurs when resources are
not allocated efficiently through the use of
the market, that is, when the costs and
benefits to society are not equated by the
natural market forces of supply and
demand (for example, unsustainable use
of natural resources or development of
social inequities).
Mesopredator release: The process where-
by the removal or loss of higher order
predators results in the increase in abun-
dance of and substitution by lower order
predators. The negative impacts of meso-
predators on small mammal populations
may be greater than the higher order
predators.
Monoestrus: Having a single oestrus period
in one sexual season or year.
Morbidity rate: Proportion of a population
affected by disease for a given time inter-
val. Usually expressed as a per capita rate.
Mortality rate: Proportion of a population
dying during a given time interval. Usually
expressed as an instantaneous per capita
rate. In seasonal breeders such as dingoes
mortality may be an annual death rate.
Nocturnal: Active at night.
Non-target (animal/species): Animal or
species that is accidentally killed or
injured by a control measure (for exam-
ple, domestic dogs or native wildlife
caught in wild dog traps).
Oestrus: The phase of the female reproduc-
tive cycle when they are fertile and ovula-
tion occurs, sometime referred to as ‘sexu-
al heat’.
Opportunistic feeding: Non-selective feed-
ing occurring when the opportunity arises.
Pack: A social grouping of canids, usually
genetically related. Wild dogs may hunt as a
whole pack, as a sub-group or individually.
Per capita: Per head of population (for
example, food consumption per sheep is
per capita food consumption).
Pest: Harmful, destructive or troublesome
organism.
Phenotype: The characters of an organism
due to the interaction of genotype and
environment.
Population: Groups of animals of a particu-
lar species occupying an area where they
are subject to the same broad set of envi-
ronmental or management conditions.
Population dynamics: The process of
numerical and structural change within
populations resulting from births, deaths
and movements.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
172

Population limitation: A factor is limiting
if a change in the factor produces a
change in average or equilibrium density
of a population. For example, predation
by wild dogs may limit the density of a
prey population if abundance of the prey
is higher when wild dogs are absent.
Population regulation: A factor is regulat-
ing if the percentage mortality that it caus-
es increases with population density
(sometimes called density-dependent reg-
ulation). For example, a disease may regu-
late wild dog abundance if it causes higher
percentage mortality as wild dog density
increases.
Predator: An animal that kills other animals
for food.
Prevalence: The number of instances of dis-
ease, or related attributes (e.g. infection or
presence of antibodies) in a known popu-
lation at a designated time, without dis-
tinction between old and new cases.
Prey: An animal hunted or seized as food by
a flesh-eating animal.
RANGEPACK: A computer software package
(produced by CSIRO) with modules that aid
management decisions for livestock enter-
prises, particularly for those in the arid zone.
Modules include Herd-Econ, which models
herd dynamics and property economics,
Climate that uses past rainfall data to model
the probability of rainfall events and
Paddock, which predicts grazing patterns
within paddocks.
Pro-oestrus: Preparatory phase of the oestrus
cycle when the female reproductive system
is active but preceding ovulation (egg
release).
Reactive control: Control activities in
response to the presence of or damage by
vertebrate pests.
Regression equation: An equation which
describes the relationship between two or
more variables.
Species: Group of interbreeding individuals
not breeding with another such group and
which has characteristics that distinguish
it from other groups.
Species-specific: Affecting only the target-
ed species.
Standard deviation (s.d.): The standard
deviation of a sample is an estimate of its
variability around a mean value, and is
calculated from the square root of the
variance (s2):
Strategic control: Using historical evidence
and current knowledge to devise strate-
gies that prevent damage caused by verte-
brate pests before damage commences.
Stochastic: Incorporating some degree of
natural variation which has a mathemati-
cally calculable probability.
Stochastic dynamic programming: A
mathematical approach to modelling the
effects of problems (such as weeds, pests
or harvest rates) on production systems,
which incorporates measured uncertainty
(stochasticity) and the dynamics of the
population (of weeds, pests or resource).
The objective function is often specified
as the present value of the expected
returns, which may include the decision
makers' risk preference.
Subspecies: Group of individuals within a
species, having certain characteristics
which distinguish them from other mem-
bers of the species, and forming a breed-
ing group.
Surplus killing: Predatory activity where prey
are attacked and killed in excess of the
immediate and short-term food require-
ments of the predator (Kruuk 1972b).
Surplus killing behaviour may result in a
number of surviving prey showing injuries.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 173

Sustainability: Continuing in present form
and at current level in the longer term.
Sustained control: Continued control in
the longer term.
Territory: The area occupied by an animal,
or by a pair or group of animals, which it
or they will defend against intruders.
‘Territory’ and ‘home range’ are synony-
mous for some canids.
Transect: A line (linear plot) through a study
area on which data collection occurs.
Trap night: One trap set for one night (for
example, if three traps were set for two
nights each, this would be six trap nights).
Top order predator: Animal at the top of
the food chain. These animals are only
preyed upon by other top order predators
including humans.
Ungulate: Hoofed herbivore such as the
horse, goat, sheep, pig and antelope.
Unpriced value: Values for things that are
not exchanged in regular markets and as
such do not have a monetary price, for
example, scenery.
Varanid: The family Varanidae comprises a
group of about 30 species, generally known
in Australia as goannas.
Vertebrate: Animal with a backbone.
Wild dogs: All wild-living dogs, including
feral dogs, dingoes and hybrids.
Wilderness: Land that has been essentially
unmodified since European settlement.
x-axis: The horizontal axis on a graph.
y-axis: The vertical axis on a graph.
Zoonoses: Diseases that are transmitted
between animals and humans.
Bureau of Rural Sciences
174

1
1080, 39, 65, 74, 87, 97, 98, 131, 136
clinical signs, 67
detoxification by soil organisms, 109
environmental fate, 109
human poisoning, 67
LD100, 99, 110
LD50, 99, 100, 110
LD99, 99
see also poisons
A
Aboriginal
mythology, 14, 50, 51, 64
people, 11, 14, 40, 50, 51, 60, 64, 68, 69,
73, 76, 79
abundance, 125
absolute
estimation, 86
animal tracks, 85
estimator, 86
footprints, 84, 85, 101
index, 85
relative, 41, 85, 87, 98
Acts
Agriculture and Related Resources
Protection Act 1976, 75, 81
Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural
Protection and other purposes) Act 1986,
76, 81
Catchment and Land Protection Act
1994, 77, 81
Companion Animals Act 1998, 51, 77, 81
Dog Control Act 1975, 81
Dog Control Act 1987, 77, 81
National Parks Act 1975, 77, 81
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970,
77, 81
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974,
77, 81
Nature Conservation Act 1980, 77, 81
Nature Conservation Act 1996, 81
Nicholson Land Act Victoria 1860, 43
Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
1993, 76
Pastures Protection Act 1939, 77
Robertson Free Selection Act NSW 1861,
44
Rural Lands Protection Act 1985, 76, 81
Rural Lands Protection Act 1989, 77
Rural Lands Protection (Amendment)
Act 1994, 77
Rural Lands Protection (Amendment)
Act 1997, 77
Rural Lands Protection (Amendment)
Act 1998, 77, 81
Territory Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act 1993, 81
Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995, 77, 81, 114
Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921, 74, 77,
81
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, 76, 81
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) (Amendment) Act
1995, 50, 81
Adenovirus
see hepatitis
aerial observations, 86
African hunting dog, 24
agile wallaby, 21, 22, 56
agricultural impacts, 7, 8, 34, 87, 107, 108,
112, 116, 123, 136, 139
Alice Springs, 15, 27, 58, 106
Amblyomma triguttatum
see ticks
Ancylostoma caninum
see hookworm
animal welfare, 7, 65, 66, 68, 83, 99, 113, 127,
136, 137
Anseranas semipalmata
see magpie goose
Arabian wolf, 12
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 175
Index

arid, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 58, 59,
60, 97, 136
areas, 20, 24, 31, 50
Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve, 76, 82
Asia, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, 38, 50, 52, 80, 138
Asian seafarers, 13, 38
Aujeszky’s disease, 53
Australian Capital Territory, 44, 51, 52, 65,
98, 100, 101, 110, 115
distribution of wild dogs, 15
legislation, 77, 81
management of wild dogs, 73, 77, 79
Australian Hydatids Control and
Epidemiology Program, 51, 52, 68, 115
Australian National Kennel Council, 51, 79,
80
aversive conditioning, 78, 104
B
bait stations, 74, 85, 86, 101, 110
baiting, 22, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 84, 86, 87, 104,
110
aerial, 36, 37, 52, 58, 69, 73, 75, 76, 79, 97,
100, 101, 103, 107, 108, 109, 114, 115,
117, 118, 121, 122, 126, 131, 132, 138
accuracy, 74
efficacy, 74
fixed-wing aircraft, 74, 102, 109, 117,
121
helicopters, 74, 100, 102, 109, 117, 121
bait materials, 100
Doggone bait, 101
dried meat baits, 97, 101
moist meat baits, 101
decomposing baits, 102
ground baiting, 76, 78, 97, 117, 118, 126,
132, 135
bait mounds, 101
burying baits, 101
free-feeding period, 101
replacement baiting, 101
strategies, 103, 138
timing and frequency, 102
Barkly Tableland (Northern Territory), 22,
35, 54, 106
basenji, 13
bears, 61, 86, 107
benefit–cost
analysis, 132
comparison, 133
ratios, 132, 133
relationship, 125
bighorn sheep, 86
biting lice, 52
bounties, 50, 51, 60, 65, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78,
79, 102, 104
control value, 72
bovine hydatidosis, 51
branding percentages, 49, 130, 131
breeding
cycle, 33
pattern, 13, 32, 57, 80
Brucella canis (infective agent)
see canine brucellosis
brushtail possum, 20, 22, 110
Bubalus bubalis
see buffalo
buffalo, 25, 35, 60
buffer
areas, 78, 84, 103
zones, 52, 79, 103, 104, 108, 133
Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS), 5, 6, 127,
164
C
caching, 27, 100
Canidae, 11
canine brucellosis, 53
canine distemper, 34, 52, 53
canine hepatitis, 52
Canis latrans
see coyote
Canis lupus
see wolf
Canis lupus arabs
see Arabian wolf, 12
Canis lupus dingo (sub-species dingo), 5,
11, 12
Canis lupus familiaris
see domestic dog
Bureau of Rural Sciences
176

Canis lupus pallipes
see pale-footed wolf
carbohydrate, 22
Carnivora, 11
Carolina dog, 13
carrion, 21, 22, 23, 26, 36, 54, 55, 58, 60
catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), 86
cattle, 6, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, 35, 36, 41,
42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57,
58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 78, 79, 84, 87, 93, 100,
103, 105, 106, 110, 112, 123, 124, 125,
130, 131, 135, 136, 137, 139
‘nursery groups’, 47
protective behaviour, 49
strategic mating, 106
see also livestock
Chagas’ disease, 53
chromosomes, 11
Chrysomya bezziana
see screw-worm fly
climatic variability, 7
coat colour, 12, 13, 17, 19, 80
coccidiosis, 34
commensal, 11, 29, 77, 138
relationships, 12
commodity prices, 7
common brown dog tick, 53
Commonwealth Government, 5, 81, 115
community, 127
groups, 7, 65, 118
perceptions, 63
contingent
loss, 127
value, 113, 123, 139
control, 5, 7, 14, 20, 22, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
41, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81,
83, 84, 86, 87, 93, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101,
104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 115, 116, 118,
123, 129, 130, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
activities, 6, 46, 76, 103, 108, 112, 114
cost of control, 46, 107, 108, 113, 124,
126, 135
see also management and control
coot, 56
Coronaviridae
see transmissable gastroenteritis
techniques for measuring, 107
coyote, 28, 31, 61, 104, 105
critical body weight range (CWR) mammals,
50, 51, 110
Crocuta crocuta
see spotted hyena
cumulative bait uptake, 86
cyanide, 86, 100, 110
see also poisons
Cygnus atratus
see swan (black)
D
Dasyurus maculatus
see spotted-tailed quoll
decision matrix, 118
decision-making framework, 116, 119, 122
dens, 14, 20, 27, 31, 39, 52, 53, 56, 58, 64, 84,
104, 108, 116, 129
blocking of entrances, 68
characteristics, 33
location, 104
densities, 21, 25, 29, 34, 36, 38, 48, 58, 85, 86,
135
dingoes, 20, 37, 39, 52
wild dogs, 14, 39, 52, 53, 56, 84, 108, 116,
124, 125, 126, 129, 132
density–damage relationships, 124, 125, 126
Desmodus rotundus
see vampire bat
diet, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 49, 52, 54, 57, 58
alternative food, 48, 132
dingoes
abundance, 14, 41
as a sub-species, 8
as an advertising image, 63
as an icon, 51
as an official breed, 51
as human food, 35, 50
as native fauna, 69
as pets, 40
attacks on humans, 60
Azaria Chamberlain case, 60, 64, 72
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 177

breeders, 80
communication, 54
howling, 30, 67
scent marking, 30, 31
conservation, 6, 8, 65, 70, 76, 79, 84, 115,
116, 123, 127, 135, 140
issues, 7, 69, 136
objectives, 7, 139
priorities, 7
status, 7, 50, 83
values, 7, 50, 113
diet, 21, 22, 26
overlapping, 49
distribution, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 41, 42,
43, 48, 50, 51, 70, 102, 110
dominance hierarchies, 54
extinction, 39
female infanticide, 38, 39
foraging behaviour, 23
genetically pure, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19,
32, 39, 40, 51, 63, 79, 80, 84, 123, 140
immigrant, 49
interactions with humans, 68
introduction to Australia, 13,14
legal status, 6, 75
movements, 37, 103
dispersal movements, 28
site fidelity, 28
numbers, 20, 28, 29, 36, 38, 39, 41, 50, 53,
93
pelts, 50
population
assessment, 86
emigration, 38
immigration, 38
overestimates, 86
preservation societies, 79
repopulation, 37, 49, 103
reproduction
annual oestrus cycle, 32
average litter size, 32, 33
birth pulse, 33
gestation, 32, 33
pseudopregnancy, 32
seasonality, 32
sexual maturity, 32
testis weights, 32
role in functioning of ecosystems, 50
rival dingo groups, 26
size
average measurements, 17
ear length, 17
head length, 17, 19
hindfoot length, 17
tail length, 17
total length, 17
size of hunting groups, 23
taxonomy, 6
temporary breeding groups, 54
unpriced value, 113
weight, 17, 109
Dirofilaria immitis
see heartworm
disease, 25, 33, 34, 35, 38, 51, 52, 53, 68, 112,
138
dispersal sink, 34
DNA, 86
fingerprinting, 12, 69, 80
sampling, 84
Dog Fence Board, 76
doggers, 67, 68, 73, 75, 78, 82, 85, 97, 102,
104, 107, 120
dog-proof fence, 15, 74, 92, 94, 109, 116, 119
domestic dog, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 30, 32,
33, 34, 35, 40, 52, 53, 68, 69, 76, 79, 99,
107, 112
breeds
collies, 19
heelers, 19
kelpies, 19
commensal, 11
domestication, 11, 13
drought, 7, 22, 24, 26, 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 42,
50, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 106
dusky rat, 20, 22, 35, 56
E
echidna, 14, 68, 95, 96
Bureau of Rural Sciences
178

Echinococcus granulosus (causal agent)
see hydatidosis
ecological, 50, 61, 79, 129, 138, 140
balance, 93
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)
Strategy, 5
economic
assessments, 46
frameworks, 113, 124, 139
impacts, 9, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49
loss to cattle industry due to wild dog
predation, 54, 59
Ehrlichia canis
see tropical canine pancytopaenia
Eimeria canis
see coccidiosis
enterprise substitution, 105
Environment Australia (EA), 6
Erldunda (central Australia), 26, 57
European settlement, 6, 12, 14, 20, 38, 42, 52,
54, 63, 69, 75
euro, 22, 23, 27, 29, 58
evolution, 11, 12
evolutionary lineage, 11
extension
officers, 116, 161
services, 6, 115, 116, 137, 161, 164
training, 116
F
fencing
barrier, 6, 14, 39, 64, 73, 74, 76, 82, 95, 96,
107, 117, 119, 120, 122
electric
outrigger, 92, 94, 95, 96
exclusion, 20, 65, 68, 72, 93, 118
Dog Fence, 14, 58, 66, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79,
104, 105
wire netting, 73, 92, 94, 95
see also dog-proof fence
maintenance, 95
marsupial netting, 95
rabbit-proof, 15, 74, 94
netting, 95
feral, 11, 12, 17, 19, 32, 33, 40, 51, 52, 63, 65,
76, 77, 123
cats, 6, 41, 42, 54, 55, 138, 139
goats, 5, 50, 58, 164
horses, 5, 25, 30, 164
pigs, 5, 14, 22, 50, 60, 129, 164
rabbits, 5, 6, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 35,
38, 39, 41, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 98, 106,
109, 115, 129, 136, 164
fire, 38, 54, 56, 57, 58, 78
altered regimes, 35, 55
flush periods, 26, 33, 39, 58, 59
food supplies, 14, 29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 53, 56,
61, 80, 103
Fortescue
River, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35,
37, 39, 41, 58, 97
study, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35,
37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 58, 97
fossils, 12, 13
foxes (European red), 5, 31, 42, 52, 58, 63,
67, 68, 86, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103,
109, 110, 139, 164
affect on abundance by wild dogs, 41, 50,
54, 55, 70, 93, 138
as predators, 41, 55, 104
competition with wild dogs, 41, 54
Fraser Island, 15, 39, 51, 60, 61, 64, 80, 104,
113, 140
free-roaming dogs, 12, 14, 29, 30, 52, 68, 69,
104, 112, 140
Fulica atra
see coot
G
Gallinula mortierii
see Tasmanian native-hen
genetics
purity, 63, 80, 140
DNA testing, 12, 69, 80, 84, 86
see also dingoes (genetically pure)
government, 5, 6, 8, 22, 64, 65, 68, 75, 76, 77,
79, 80, 98, 108, 118, 140, 161, 162, 164
agencies, 46, 72, 73, 81, 107, 113, 114,
115, 116
roles and responsibilites, 7, 9
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 179

grazing pressure, 7, 139
grizzly bear, 86
group
approach, 7, 9, 129
formation, 23, 119
guard dogs, 13
see also sheep-guarding dogs
Gulf region, 22
Guy Fawkes River (northern NSW), 39, 58
H
habitat, 20, 34, 42, 55, 80, 86
Harts Ranges (near Alice Springs), 58
hauling, 12
heartworm, 34, 35, 52
hepatitis, 34, 52
herding, 12, 24, 25, 48, 49, 106, 123
Herpesviridae
see Aujeszky’s disease
Heterodoxus spiniger
see biting lice
Hippoboscid spp.
see kangaroo flies
home range, 30, 41, 104, 114, 118, 123
availability of resources, 27
boundaries, 27
natal, 28, 29
overlap, 27
size, 27, 28
hookworm, 34
hunting by dogs, 12, 13, 14, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31,
33, 35, 38, 41, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 63, 68,
72, 109
alone, 23, 24, 25, 124
birds, 21
nestlings, 25
newly fledged birds, 25
efficiency, 23
groups, 21, 23, 24, 25, 124
large kangaroos, 24
large ungulates, 25
peak in calving, 54, 106
strategies, 20, 22, 124
bailing up kangaroos, 23
pouncing, 25
success, 22, 24, 25, 33
tactics, 21, 25
unit, 49
hybridisation, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 30, 32,
33, 36, 39, 40, 50, 51, 63, 69, 75, 76, 80,
123, 136, 140
main processes, 40
prevention, 79
hydatid control program, 51
hydatidosis, 68, 137
in humans, 35, 51, 52
hydatids, 51, 68, 112, 115, 137
transmission, 52
foxes as definitive hosts, 52
macropods as intermediate hosts, 52
hyenas, 23, 24
I
implementation, 5, 7, 9, 73, 83, 113, 114, 115,
116, 118, 129, 131, 140
indices
of abundance, 84, 85, 86, 103
relationship with abundance, 85
Indonesia, 13
insects, 20, 22, 35
island refugia, 80
Isospora rivolta
see coccidiosis
Ixodes holocyclus
see ticks
J
Jervis Bay, 17
K
kangaroo flies, 35
kangaroos, 14, 20, 26, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 41,
42, 48, 49, 59, 63, 100, 106, 130, 139
autopsies, 24
drowning dogs, 24
eastern grey, 22, 23, 24, 56, 57
red, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 54, 58, 60
Kapalga (northern Australia), 29, 35, 39, 60
karyotypes, 11
kirri dog, 13
Kosciusko National Park, 39, 57
Bureau of Rural Sciences
180

L
lactation, 20, 30
land
management, 87, 161, 162, 163, 164
agencies, 5
authority, 87
managers, 7, 8, 113, 114, 116, 124, 125,
126, 127, 131
Landcare, 5, 115, 163
landholder survey/questionnaire, 45
legal, 5, 6, 65, 72, 75, 77, 100, 113, 164
constraints, 7
legislation, 7, 8, 50, 51, 63, 65, 72, 78, 80, 81,
114, 115, 136, 140, 164
current, 75
lice, 34, 35, 52
lithium chloride, 78, 104
livestock, 6, 15, 21, 29, 35, 37, 43, 45, 46, 49,
53, 55, 57, 63, 64, 65, 68, 75, 77, 78, 83,
84, 87, 98, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 113,
115, 116, 130, 132, 135, 136, 137, 140, 157
attacks on, 22
genetics, 7
harassment, 25, 26, 44, 48, 61, 93, 112
injuries, 88
castration, 48, 91
scrotal injuries, 48, 91
insurance and compensation schemes,
108, 136
mismothering (cause of death), 48, 87, 93
production losses, 6
see also sheep, cattle
lizards, 22
longevity, 19
long-haired rat, 20, 21, 22, 35
lungworm, 34
Lycaon pictus
see African hunting dog
M
Macassan trepanger, 13
macropods, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 35, 38, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 68, 94,
95, 96, 139
Macropus agilis
see agile wallaby
Macropus giganteus
see kangaroos (eastern grey)
Macropus robustus
see euro
Macropus rufogriseus
see red-necked wallaby
Macropus rufus
see kangaroos (red)
magpie goose, 20, 22, 25, 56
maiming, 48
management and control
adaptive management
active, 112
passive, 112
biological control, 68, 107
molecular biology, 107
choice of control technique, 93
defining the problem, 112, 124, 130
developing a management plan, 113
flexible approach, 7
hormonal control, 68
humaneness, 66, 93
immunocontraception, 68
implementation, 7, 73, 113, 114, 115, 116,
129
location of breeding dens, 104
management options, 9, 106, 116, 118,
162
conservation, 9, 116
local eradication, 116
no control, 9, 87, 112, 130, 133
reactive management/control, 9, 73, 84,
115, 116, 117, 118
strategic management/control, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 74, 78, 102, 106, 111, 112, 113, 115,
116, 117, 123, 136
management plan, 7, 9, 80, 112, 113, 114,
115, 118, 123, 129, 136, 140
management strategies, 6, 8, 11, 64, 75,
77, 93, 105, 106, 113, 118, 123, 129, 136,
139, 140
operational monitoring, 129
performance criteria, 9, 113, 123, 129
performance monitoring, 129
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 181

preventative control, 84
scale of control, 49
maps, 9
regional, 87
Maranoa region, 22
marginal analysis, 108, 126, 128, 135, 139
mesopredator release, 110
monitoring and evaluation, 6, 7, 9, 34, 37, 39,
83, 86, 93, 95, 104, 108, 110, 112, 114,
116, 118, 123, 129, 130, 131, 135, 137
morbidity, 51
rate, 34
mortality, 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, 60, 138
mountain lion, 86, 107
musters, 87
N
Nadgee Nature Reserve, 56, 58
National Feral Animal Control Program
(NFACP), 5, 6, 127
National Landcare Program (NLP), 5
native, 5, 12, 21, 50, 51, 56, 57, 63, 65, 67, 70,
77, 79, 99, 101, 107, 113, 124, 136, 138,
139
endangered vertebrates, 6
fauna, 6, 55, 69, 93, 140
remnant endangered populations, 49
mammals, 22, 55, 93, 106, 109
Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), 5
nature reserves, 56, 58, 64, 76, 77
neighbours, 75, 127, 131
cooperation, 95
New Guinea singing dog, 13
New South Wales, 6, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
30, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52,
56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 85, 87, 95,
96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116,
117, 128, 132
distribution of wild dogs, 14, 15
legislation, 77, 81
management of wild dogs, 72, 73, 74, 77,
78, 79
nomenclature, 11, 12
non-target
deaths, 100
poisonings, 97, 100
species, 49, 69, 83, 99, 101, 103, 109, 138
impact of control measures, 49
hazards to, 83
risks to, 109
trapping, 98
Northern Territory, 20, 22, 30, 46, 54, 56, 58,
63, 64, 101, 106, 123
distribution of wild dogs, 15
legislation, 76, 81
management of wild dogs, 74, 76, 79
Nullarbor Plains, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 35, 41
O
offal, 51
opportunistic feeder, 23
Oslerus osleri
see lungworm
Ovis canadensis
see bighorn sheep
P
Pacific islands, 13
packs, 20, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36,
37, 38, 39, 53, 54, 56, 61, 84, 86, 103
pale-footed wolf, 12
Paramyxovirus
see canine distemper
parasites, 35, 35, 51, 52, 53, 68, 138, 157, 158,
159, 160
partnerships, 9, 113
group control, 114, 123
parvovirus disease, 52
pastoral, 81
industry, 20, 38, 57, 73
lease, 21, 22, 64, 75, 76
pathogens, 34, 53, 157, 158, 159, 160
pay-off matrices, 126, 127
peak in calving, 54, 106
pest control agencies, 7
Petroi (north-eastern NSW), 58
Pilbara region, 48, 86
plagues, 22, 28, 35, 39, 56
Bureau of Rural Sciences
182

poisons, 32, 34, 38, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75,
93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 109, 110,
136, 137, 138
baiting, 86, 100
bait-shyness, 100
cooperation between landholders, 74
detoxification, 99
humaneness, 67
M-44 cyanide ejector, 100, 110
Minty bait, 74
sub-lethal doses, 67, 99, 100, 110
population dynamics, 35, 37, 38, 128, 138
Potoroidae, 22, 55
predation, 7, 9, 26, 32, 35, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54,
55, 56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 73, 77, 78, 84,
87, 89, 93, 96, 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
108, 114, 116, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130,
135, 136, 139, 140
on livestock, 6, 22, 43, 44, 46, 112, 113,
115, 136
measuring the impact, 87
regulation or limiting of prey
populations, 58
seasonal peaks, 45
predators, 22, 23, 24, 26, 35, 41, 49, 51, 53,
60, 64, 84, 87, 93, 104, 138
selective, 23
predatory cycle, 56
prey, 7, 38, 48, 51, 58, 61, 84, 87, 102, 139
abundance, 20, 60, 136
anti-predator behaviour, 22
availability, 23
large, 23, 26, 29, 30, 33, 53
live, 22, 54
native, 21, 49, 56, 57
regulation, 50
small, 25
species, 20, 23, 27, 29, 35, 36, 54, 56, 57,
93
switching, 108, 124
see also predation (on livestock)
problem definition, 6, 9, 112, 130
problem dogs/individuals, 98, 132
property inspection reports, 87
Pseudocheirus peregrinus
see ringtail possum
public
attitudes, 6
education, 70
health issues, 68
Puma concolor
see mountain lion
Q
Queensland, 6, 22, 34, 49, 50, 51, 58, 60, 64,
65, 73, 80, 87, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 112,
116, 123, 130, 131
distribution of wild dogs, 14, 15
legislation, 76, 77, 81
management of wild dogs, 72, 74, 75, 76,
78, 79
R
Rabbit Calicivirus Disease (RCD), 136
rabbit stickfast fleas, 35
rabbit-proof fence
see fencing (rabbit-proof)
rabbits, 5, 6, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 35, 38, 39,
41, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 94, 98, 106,
109, 115, 128, 129, 136, 164
rabies, 53, 68, 112
transmission, 52, 138
radio-collar, 29, 45, 48, 86, 87, 97
rangelands, 52, 60
RANGEPACK, 106
rat kangaroo, 22
rats, 20, 21, 22, 35, 56
Rattus colletti
see dusky rat
Rattus villosissimus
see long-haired rat
recreational hunters, 51
red-necked wallaby, 22, 23, 57
regulatory infrastructure, 7
Rhabdoviridae
see rabies
Rhipicephalus sanguineas
see common brown dog tick
ringtail possum, 22
riverine areas, 20
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 183

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (RSPCA), 40, 65, 67, 68, 80
S
sanctuaries, 76, 80
Sarcophilus harrisii
see Tasmanian devil
Sarcoptes scabiei (causal agent)
see sarcoptic mange
sarcoptic mange, 35
scat samples, 87
scavenging, 12, 22, 26, 54, 104
scent stations, 85, 86
scent-station index, 32
screw-worm fly, 53
seasonal conditions, 32, 48, 49, 105, 123
seasonal variation, 87
sheep, 25, 26, 34, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48,
49, 51, 53, 54, 63, 65, 66, 72, 73, 76, 80,
84, 86, 87, 95, 96, 97, 103, 104, 105, 107,
108, 116, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132,
133, 135
grazing, 6, 14, 20, 78, 98, 112
measles, 52
merino, 21, 93, 127
recognising predation by wild dogs, 89,
90, 91
see also livestock
sheep-guarding dogs
Anatolian karabash, 104
maremma, 104
shepherding, 73
shepherds, 43, 44, 73
shooting, 34, 38, 65, 73, 77, 93, 96, 117, 122,
132
sign counts, 85
skull
morphology, 12
comparisons, 13
social
behaviour, 13, 30, 40
factors, 7, 29, 38, 127
organisation, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 49, 53,
132
discrete territories, 29
distinct territories, 29
neighbouring packs, 29
spatial separation, 30
stable packs, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 54
temporal separation, 30
sodium fluoroacetate
see 1080
solitary dogs, 26
South Australia, 6, 20, 28, 29, 35, 39, 41, 58,
66, 67, 81, 95, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105
distribution of wild dogs, 14, 15
legislation, 76
mallee, 19
management of wild dogs, 72, 73, 74, 75,
76, 79
spotted hyena, 23
spotted-tailed quoll, 42, 109, 138
bait uptake, 110
stakeholders, 68, 113, 114, 115, 118, 129,
162, 163
Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Resource Management (SCARM), 5
stock losses, 69, 95, 104, 108
records, 87
strategic approach
see management and control (strategic
management/control)
strategic management
see management and control (strategic
managementj/control)
strychnine, 22, 73, 74, 98, 99, 100, 130, 137
clinical signs, 67
success rate, 23, 24, 26
Sulawesi, 22
surplus killing, 24, 25, 26, 65, 108, 124
surveys, 39, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 63, 86, 87, 96,
108
swamp wallaby, 20, 22, 23, 57, 58
juvenile, 25
pouch young, 24
swan (black), 25, 56
sylvatic cycles, 51, 52, 53
T
Tachyglossus aculeatus
see echidna
Bureau of Rural Sciences
184

Taenia ovis
see sheep (measles)
Taenia pisiformis
see tapeworm
tapeworm, 35
Tasmania, 14, 20, 49, 52, 53, 54
distribution of wild dogs, 15
legislation, 77, 81
management of wild dogs, 77
Tasmanian devil, 53
Tasmanian native-hen, 49
Thailand, 12, 13, 22, 32, 35
thylacine, 53, 54
Thylacinus cynocephalus
see thylacine
ticks, 34, 53
tourism, 50, 51, 123
Townshend Island, 50
toxic collars, 104, 105, 137
transmissable gastroenteritis, 53
trapping, 34, 36, 38, 66, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 86,
93, 96, 97, 101, 108, 109, 118, 120, 121,
122, 132
decoy (odours or carcasses), 98
padded-jawed traps or snares, 66, 98, 95
targeting specific individual dogs, 102
trap-shy, 98
Trichodectes canis
see lice
Trichosurus vulpecula
see brushtail possum
Trichurus vulpis
see whipworm
tropical canine pancytopaenia, 53
Trypanosoma cruzi
see Chagas’ disease
U
United States of America, 100, 104, 105, 107
Ursus arctos
see grizzly bear
Ursus spp.
see bears
V
vampire bat, 53
Vertebrate Pests Committee (VPC), 5, 7, 72
Victoria, 19, 20, 29, 30, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 85, 100, 101, 104, 107, 110,
115
distribution of wild dogs, 14, 15
legislation, 77, 81
management of wild dogs, 72, 73, 75, 77,
79
Vietnam, 12, 13
Vombatus ursinus
see wombat (common)
W
Wallabia bicolor
see swamp wallaby
wallabies, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 56, 57,
58, 130, 139
Wallaby Creek, 23
water
artesian bores, 38, 55, 57
intake, 20
needs, 19
permanent sources, 24
supplementary, 55
turnover, 20
watering points, 14, 20, 30, 35, 41, 106
Western Australia, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30,
35, 41, 44, 48, 49, 58, 64, 67, 86, 87, 97,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109,
116
distribution of wild dogs, 15
legislation, 75, 76, 81
management of wild dogs, 73, 74, 75, 76,
78, 79
Western Division, 14, 77, 78
whipworm, 34
wild dogs
agricultural impacts, 112
as human food, 35
assessment of age, 19
bacula, 19
canine teeth (dingoes), 19
cementum bands (teeth), 19
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs 185

closure of foramen, 19
eruption pattern of adult teeth, 19
tooth wear, 19
attacks on humans, 78, 113
culling, 78
diet, 20, 21, 22, 56, 58
analysis, 87
stomach and faecal samples, 20
emigration, 108
environmental impacts, 9, 49, 50
feeding ecology, 22
genetic evaluations, 39
human and animal health impacts, 112
interactions with native prey, 56
population dynamics, 37
refugia, 105
troublesome individuals, 98, 132
wildlife parks, 51, 76
wolf, 5, 11, 12, 24, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 104, 107
wombat (common), 21, 22, 57, 63
Z
zoonoses, 53
zoos, 51, 76
Bureau of Rural Sciences
186

Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild
Dogs
is the first book to provide a comprehensive
review of the history and biology of wild dogs
in Australia, the damage they cause, and
community attitudes to their management.
Australia's wild dogs include dingoes, introduced
around 4000 years ago, feral domestic dogs and
hybrids between the two. They are widely
distributed throughout Australia. Predation and
harassment of stock by wild dogs causes millions
of dollars worth of losses to Australian sheep,
cattle and goat producers each year. There are
also opportunity costs in areas where sheep are
not grazed because of the high risk of wild dog
predation. For this reason, wild dog control is a
significant expense for many pastoralists and
government agencies. Yet conservation of pure
dingoes is also important and is threatened by
their hybridisation with feral domestic dogs on the
mainland.
Key strategies for successful wild dog management
are recommended by the authors, who are scientific
experts on wild dog management. The strategies
are illustrated by case studies.
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild
Dogs
is an essential guide for policy makers,
pastoralists, conservation reserve managers and
all those interested in wild dog management.
Managing the Impacts of
Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY - AUSTRALIA
Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs