Gympie Region Wild Dog Control Plan...Gympie Regional Council – Wild Dog Control Plan behavioural differences may have for wild dog control. Wild dog and other pest control strategies

GYMPIE REGION

WILD DOG CONTROL PLAN

Gympie Regional Council 2014

ISMP009 Page 2 of 32 08/08/14 Gympie Regional Council – Wild Dog Control Plan

Contents: Gympie Region Wild Dog Control Plan – purpose and outline 3 What is a wild dog? 4 Attitudes to wild dogs 5 Gympie Regional Council area – a breakdown 7 Wild dogs and dingoes – behavioural considerations 11 Wild dog control and associated pest strategies 16 Techniques for wild dog control 18 Wild dog action workshops 24 Communication and coordination 26 Key actions to be delivered 27 Definitions 29 References 30


Gympie Region Wild Dog Control Plan – purpose and outline All wild dogs in Queensland are declared Class 2 pest animals under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. All landholders, including government agencies responsible for State lands, are required to take reasonable steps to control wild dogs (and other declared pests) on their land. The Gympie Region Wild Dog Control Plan has been developed by Gympie Regional Council (GRC) to assist landholders to coordinate and concentrate community efforts in wild dog control. The vision for this plan is:

To minimise the impact of wild dogs on the economic and social activities of rural and urban communities, and the natural environment within Gympie Region.

The purpose of the plan is to establish three priorities in wild dog control for Gympie Regional Council (GRC), the Gympie region community, and affected regional industries. These priorities are to:

• reduce wild dog attacks on livestock and other wild dog threats;

• promote stakeholder leadership of wild dog control activities; and

• continuously improve how wild dogs are managed in the Gympie region by data collection and analysis, and through innovation in the implementation of wild dog control programs.

The plan encourages stakeholders to work together using a combination of strategies including regulated poison baiting, trapping, shooting, exclusion fencing, good animal husbandry, surveillance and aversion for a ‘nil tenure’ approach to wild dog control. Stakeholders will be encouraged to “think regionally, act locally” in implementing programs. Reporting wild dog attacks and stock losses, and participating in coordinated community wild dog control programs will assist the Gympie region to achieve stakeholder aims in wild dog control. This plan begins by summarising attitudes to wild dogs and the typical social, economic and environmental impacts that wild dogs have in the four GRC districts which have been identified as relevant for the plan’s purposes. The plan then summarises some of the behavioural differences between wild dogs and dingoes and the implications that


behavioural differences may have for wild dog control. Wild dog and other pest control strategies are summarised as part of an integrated feral pest control approach. The plan concludes with strategies for forming wild dog action stakeholder groups, communication and coordination processes, and key actions to be delivered by the wild dog control program. What is a wild dog? Wild dogs are found in most parts of Australia, sometimes in large numbers and at other times as isolated individuals. In many places where significant numbers of wild dogs are found in close proximity to settled areas or where they come into contact with domestic animals, wild dogs present a problem. However, there is not necessarily agreement as to what constitutes a wild dog and, if there are wild dogs, whether or how they should be controlled. The term ‘wild dog’ can have a number of meanings. The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) uses ‘wild dog’ to refer collectively to pure dingoes, feral domestic dogs, and hybrids between the two. In other words, all free-roaming canids are labelled as wild dogs and are to be managed as such (Invasive Animals CRC, 2012). A major issue for some groups is the unique identity of the Australian dingo and its status as a native animal. However, in the more settled areas of the Australian mainland, most dingoes carry some domestic dog genes even though they may not show obvious hybrid characteristics (Corbett, 2001: 7; Invasive Animals CRC, 2012). Animals locally referred to as dingoes in the Gympie region could be expected to carry a significant proportion of domestic dog genes and their control therefore should not be an issue for supporters of the dingo. At the other end of the spectrum, there are also free-roaming dogs which may cause similar damage to wild dogs. For this reason, such animals may be classed as wild dogs and

Image P Jesser

While they may not show obvious hybrid characteristics, most Australian wild dogs carry a mixture of dingo and domestic dog genes.


be subjected to the same range of controls. While the Invasive Animals CRC uses the term ‘wild dog’ to include dingoes, the likely absence of pure dingoes in the Gympie region removes this complication from local consideration in wild dog control. In this plan, the term ‘wild dog’ is assumed to include:

• feral dogs; • feral dog/dingo hybrids; and • free-roaming dogs which cause the same or similar damage as feral dogs.

This definition is similar to that applied in other States in wild dog control strategies (see, for example, NSW Department of Environment and Heritage 2012 and VIC Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013).

Attitudes to wild dogs Wild dogs can have a number of impacts including:

• economic impacts through attacks on livestock and the spread of disease; • social impacts through threats to human safety (including disease risk), attacks on

pets and domestic animals, and reduction of the pleasures of peri-urban living; and • environmental impacts through predation on native species.

Media reports of wild dog activity and damage in the Gympie region highlight the level of community concern. The following is a summary of reports and observations from recent years. Wild dog attacks on livestock are reported frequently in both the rural and mainstream media. Concerns have been expressed in the Gympie region and adjoining council areas (Gympie Times 5 August 2009; Sunshine Coast Daily 24 April 2012, 31 May 2012, 5 March 2013). The main threat is to smaller livestock such as sheep and goats (Gympie Times 4 September 2010, 28 October 2011; Sunshine Coast Daily 16 February 2005, 27 March 2009, 11 May 2013). Calves are also attacked and killed (Gympie Times 24 November 2007; Sunshine Coast Daily 14 July 2009, 30 August 2011) although larger animals may be attacked where wild dogs exist in significant numbers (Corbett 2012: 116-120). There are concerns that increasing hybridisation with domestic kelpie and blue heeler dog breeds will instil ‘cattle sense’ in wild dogs and lead to more attacks on larger livestock (Sunshine Coast Daily, 19 September 2013).


Wild dogs will also attack and kill indiscriminately (Gympie Times 4 September 2010, 28 October 2011; Sunshine Coast Daily 5 March 2013). This behaviour has been linked to younger dogs learning to hunt and to heightened states of excitement in breeding season behaviour (Corbett 2012: 154). Heightened levels of excitement during the breeding season may increase danger to humans and livestock (Gympie Times 7 April 2012). Wild dogs spread diseases, including hydatid, which can be transferred to both humans and livestock (Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation 2010: 4; Gympie Times 17 July 2009, 5 June 2012). Wild dogs can pose a significant threat to human safety. In Southeast Queensland there has been at least one fatality and a number of attacks by wild dogs on people in recent years (Gympie Times 20 March 2010; Sunshine Coast Daily 23 March 2009, 24 May 2011, 1 April 2012; Sydney Morning Herald 2 May 2001). The increasing presence of wild dogs in areas close to human habitation and the possibility of such attacks places constraints on peri-urban living because of the threat to pets as well as to children and other people who lack the means to defend themselves (Gympie Times 5 June 2009, 26 November 2011; Sunshine Coast Daily 24 February 2005, 21 January 2007, 26 September 2007, 24 March 2009, 14 July 2010, 7 September 2010). The Fraser Island dingoes have attracted particular attention. On the one hand they have been responsible for one fatality and a number of attacks; on the other, many people claim they are worthy of protection because they believe them to be ‘pure’ dingoes (Gympie Times 19 September 2008, 20 March 2010; Sunshine Coast Daily 8 September 2008, 1 April 2012). Wild dogs also have significant impacts on native species. In Southeast Queensland, wild dogs are placing pressure on vulnerable koala populations (Sunshine Coast Daily 9 August 2010, 28 August 2012, 9 February 2014, 10 February 2014) and have been linked to reductions in other species such as bandicoots (Sunshine Coast Daily 12 September 2004). While there have been suggestions that this damage is balanced by wild dog predation on foxes and feral cats, studies have shown that they may have little or no impact (Gympie Times, 25 July 2013, citing Fleming et. al, 2012). However, as indicated earlier, not all members of the community view wild dogs in the same way. Those whose livelihoods and lifestyles are most at risk – those who suffer stock losses or whose physical safety is threatened – will want wild dogs to be subject to stringent controls. Those who suffer little or no impacts may not be as concerned about the issue. Many of those who show less concern are likely to live in major town areas which are rarely penetrated by wild dogs. Concern about baiting programs and the possible baiting of pets


must also be taken into account (Sunshine Coast Daily 14 October 2011, 9 July 2013, 26 September 2013). There are also those who are strong supporters of and advocates for protection of the dingo. Even though most, if not all, wild dogs in the Gympie region carry significant domestic dog genes, many of those who favour protection for the dingo will prefer the term ‘dingo’ to ‘wild dog’ if an animal has colouring similar to a dingo. While colouring has been shown to be a poor predictor of dingo genetic purity (Purcell 2010: 38-39), this group may oppose any form of control except perhaps where particular problem animals can be identified and targeted. Differing attitudes towards wild dogs may need to be taken into account in tailoring wild dog control strategies in different areas. Gympie Regional Council area – a breakdown For convenience, the Gympie region can be divided into four sub-regions with different demographic and economic characteristics which are likely to influence attitudes to wild dogs. The Gympie region covers an area of 6898 km2 ranging from coastal areas through to a large and diverse rural hinterland. The region is centred on the relatively densely populated, medium-sized city of Gympie. Gympie is situated on the Mary River which runs from south to north through the region. The river valley supports intensive farming and cropping activities, smaller communities and lifestyle blocks. To the east and west of the Mary River valley are less densely populated rangelands comprising farming, grazing, forestry and National Park areas. At 30 June 2012, the Gympie region had a population of 47,548. The region has experienced an average annual population growth rate of 1.6 per cent. Based on topography and historical land use, the Gympie region can be divided into four sub-regions differing in area, size of population and economic profile:

• Gympie City is the main centre providing regional health and community services, education, sport and recreation, and higher order retail and commercial facilities. It has a population of around 19,300. The city has a sizeable and well performing manufacturing base.


Most of the Gympie region’s population growth is being experienced in Gympie City and its immediate surrounds. Some of the population growth reflects a lifestyle switch to more rural settings and this is reflected in a growing peri-urban population. The Gympie region is also a net exporter of labour with 0.89 jobs for every resident worker.

Image P Jesser

Wild dog bite marks on the inside leg of a lamb. The lamb was one of two attacked on the same night. Both suffered severe bites around the back legs and died of shock. No part of either lamb was eaten. The attacks occurred less than 100 metres from an occupied house.

Although it is not unknown for wild dogs to scavenge in densely populated city areas, such intrusions are usually isolated and the presence of the animals may pass unnoticed. Wild dogs are more likely to be a problem in peri-urban areas where small and vulnerable livestock and domestic pets are commonly encountered and impacted. Unfortunately, where peri-urban living is associated with out-of-region employment, there may be conflicting attitudes to wild dog problems and it can be difficult to coordinate control efforts. A further consideration is that the smaller blocks of land in peri-urban areas limit the type of control that can feasibly be implemented.

• The Eastern/Coastal sub-region to the east of Gympie City encompasses significant

tracts of plantation forests, grazing country, wetlands (including some RAMSAR wetland areas) and National Parks. It includes the communities of Cooloola Cove, Tin Can Bay and Rainbow Beach, as well as a number of smaller villages. The population of the Eastern/Coastal sub-region is around 10,800. The major industries in the coastal area are tourism, forestry and commercial fishing. But there are also beef cattle grazing properties and more concentrated farming activities including crayfish, macadamia and mango farms. Beef producers will be concerned about calf losses due to wild dogs, but macadamia farms may be less concerned because they believe that wild dogs may help to suppress the feral pigs and rats that are responsible for significant crop losses.


The Eastern/Coastal sub-region adjoins the more closely settled Noosa region to the southeast and the Fraser Coast region in the northeast. The Fraser Coast region includes the World Heritage listed Fraser Island.

• The Mary Valley sub-region lies in the southwest part of the Gympie region, taking

in the Mary River and significant tracts of National Park and State Forests (including plantation forests). The main communities in the Mary Valley are Imbil and Kandanga, plus some smaller villages. The population of the Mary Valley sub-region is around 6,900.

Image P Jesser

Young goat mauled on the hind quarters by wild dogs. If treated in time, some animals may survive such attacks. However, once scarred in this way the animal has very little commercial value.

The main industries in this sub-region are agriculture, beef, forestry and associated timber processing, and tourism. The agricultural enterprises include some dairying, horse industries, macadamia and mango plantations, and enterprises running small numbers of goats or sheep, or engaged in other cropping activities. The Mary Valley sub-region joins the Sunshine Coast region to the south. The Sunshine Coast region has similar wild dog problems to the Mary Valley sub-region. Wild dogs can have a devastating impact on smaller holdings running sheep and animals of similar size. The wild dog damage to koala populations and other vulnerable native species in coastal forests extends to areas within the Gympie region.

• The Goomeri/Kilkivan sub-region covers that part of the Gympie region extending

to the west, north-west and north of Gympie City. This is the largest of the sub-regions in area. The main townships are Goomeri and Kilkivan with a number of smaller villages. The population of the Goomeri/Kilkivan sub-region is around 11,200. Goomeri/Kilkivan is primarily good quality agricultural land. The sub-region supports significant dairy, beef and horse industries as well as some cropping and a range of


smaller agribusiness ventures. Beef producers in particular are concerned about calf losses due to wild dogs.

Damage to the hinds legs of a race horse attacked by wild dogs. Two racehorses were attacked in a small holding yard about 100 metres from an occupied house. The horses tore out a strainer post in their efforts to escape. Noise made by the occupier’s dogs (which were chained) covered the noise of the attack.

The horse shown suffered severe cuts to its legs and bites on the rump. It was treated and recovered physically, but was terrified of dogs and never recovered psychologically from the trauma of the attack.

Image P Jesser

The Goomeri/Kilkivan sub-region adjoins the Somerset, South Burnett and North Burnett regions. All these regions have similar wild dog issues to the Goomeri/Kilkivan sub-region in the areas where they adjoin. Wild dogs are active to a greater or lesser extent across the area covered by the Gympie region, but wild dog impacts are not necessarily a direct reflection of the extent of wild dog activity. Perceptions of the wild dog problem are largely determined by demographics. The threat and the possible solution may be viewed quite differently in closely settled areas than it is in rangeland or forestry areas. Those with a strong attachment to the protection of native animals (or all animals) are likely to oppose the implementation of some types of control. With those differences comes the reality that the available options for wild dog control are also quite different between closely settled areas and rangeland or forestry areas. Wild dog control therefore requires an approach based on the sub-regional differences within the Gympie region. Based on these differences, for practical purposes the Gympie region could be divided into three broad areas with different emphases and strategies for wild dog control. These are the:

• Goomeri/Kilkivan sub-region and adjacent sparsely settled areas which should favour

traditional wild dog control strategies • eastern/coastal subregion which may require greater integration of wild dog control

strategies with control of other pests such as feral pigs; and


• closely settled parts of the Mary Valley subregion and peri-urban areas of Gympie City (and nearby localities) which will present the greatest challenges in wild dog control because of the restrictions on control techniques.

Wild dogs and dingoes – behavioural considerations All dogs and dingoes are originally descended from the wolf (Canis lupus). Most authorities now classify the dingo as Canis lupus dingo, a sub-species of wolf closely related to the Arabian wolf (Canis lupus arabs) and the pale-footed wolf of India (Canis lupus pallipes) (Corbett 2001: 9-10; Van Dyck and Strahan 2008:737-9). The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is sometimes regarded a separate species (referred to as Canis familiaris) because thousands of years of in-breeding have led to major changes in its physiology. However, the domestic dog and dingo may still freely inter-breed and produce fertile offspring. Because of this, most Australian wild dogs are dingo/domestic dog to some degree. Dingoes appear to have evolved from their parent wolf stock some 6,000-10,000 years ago. Genetic tests place their point of origin somewhere in South or Southeast Asia, where they are still widespread. They are also found in New Guinea, Madagascar, parts of Central Africa and the eastern United Stated (the “Carolina dog”) (Corbett 2001: 14-18). This distribution reflects the fact that dingoes have been associated with human movements across the continents for thousands of years. Dingoes are believed to have been first brought to Australia by early settlers about 4,000 years ago. There was probably not one single introduction. Continuing genetic input could have come through the Torres Strait islands or animals accompanying fishermen visiting northern Australia from Southeast Asia up to historical times. The indiginous people did not use dingoes as hunting dogs and they were probably not used for hunting by the original people who brought them to Australia. Rather, it is believed that they were brought to Australia as a resource.


Figure 1 shows the distribution of pure dingoes and dingo-dog hybrids in Australia. The map shows a high proportion of domestic dog genes present in wild dog populations in closely settled areas along the east coast. Genetic purity in the Gympie region is low. FIGURE 1: The distribution of pure dingoes and dingo-dog hybrids in Australia Source: Invasive Animals CRC, Wild Dog Fact Sheet, WDFS6, 2012]

True dingoes display many wolf characteristics. Some of these can only be determined from skull measurements (Corbett 2001: 189-90). But there are behavioural characteristics which are much more easily observed (see Corbett 2001).

Image GRC

Wild dogs may maintain a similar pack structure to dingoes. The pack structure increases success in hunting and increases the survival rate of pups.

Importantly, dingoes in the wild retain a pack structure with dominant male and female animals. True dingoes – like wolves – have a distinct breeding season with females coming into oestrus only once a year. In a dingo pack, only the dominant female will generally have pups. If subordinate females manage to breed, the dominant female will usually kill the subordinate female’s pups. Other females in the pack will help to raise the dominant female’s pups. If a pack consists of more than a single pair, this can result in high survival rates among the dominant female’s pups. Unlike dingoes, domestic dogs have a more loose pack structure and no particular breeding season. In domestic dogs, first oestrus can commence at any time and thereafter generally occurs twice a year at six month intervals. Individual females will maintain their breeding pattern throughout their lives.

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/purity_map.jpg�


There is some evidence that in more settled areas where wild dogs carry a high proportion of domestic dog genes, wild dogs may breed twice a year and certainly will breed outside the normal dingo breeding season. If there is no distinct pack structure among these animals, individual females may lack pack support, but there will also be more females raising pups. There are also important differences between dingoes and domestic dogs in the development of pups. Dingo pups mature quickly and develop a fear response very early in life. This fear response appears to have a genetic base rather than being determined solely by experience. It is similar to the fear response of wolf pups, which are not susceptible to being tamed even if introduced to humans in the first few weeks after birth. For the same reasons, pure bred dingoes do not make suitable pets. Domestic dogs mature more slowly and develop different behavioural tendencies. Importantly, dogs with domestic origins, but which are born in the wild, may not show a strong fear response when coming into contact with humans. In the United States, wolf/dog hybrids kept as pets have been responsible for a number of deaths and are generally considered too dangerous to handle. Taking this into account, the high proportion of dingo/domestic dog hybrids in Australia suggests that wild dogs have the potential to present serious risks to both people and livestock if they come close to human habitation. The observed changes in breeding behaviour and growth in numbers of wild dogs in the Gympie region point to increasing hybridisation. It has sometimes been suggested that a tendency towards typical dingo colouration in hybrids indicates regression towards the true dingo type. But the original pure dingo existed in a very different environment to that in which dingo/dog hybrids are found today. Natural selection may cause dingo/dog hybrids to evolve more suited to their current environment. This can result in dogs retaining their dingo appearance, but the animals may display quite different physiological and behavioural tendencies.


Table 1 summarises aspects of dingo and feral domestic dog behaviour. Table 1

Aspects of dingo and feral domestic dog behaviour

Dingo behaviour Feral domestic dog behaviour Implications for wild dog control

Maintain a pack structure with dominant male and female animals

Pack structure is a loose association of animals

Removal of dominant animals may have a greater tendency to fracture packs and increase the number of breeding pairs

Distinct breeding season (April/May)

No distinct breeding season Distinct breeding season creates opportunities to focus control strategies

Females come into oestrus once a year

Females usually come into oestrus twice a year

More frequent breeding lessens opportunities to focus control strategies

Only dominant female will have pups (or will kill subordinate females’ pups)

Any female may breed Increased number of breeding females may lead to greater population increase

Subordinate females help to raise the dominant female’s pups

Females usually raise pups alone Females raising pups alone may be more susceptible to baiting

Pups mature quickly Pups mature more slowly Increased period of dependence increases opportunities to target females

Pups achieve independence usually around November-January

Pups achieve independence at any time depending on when they were born

Distinct independence season creates opportunities to focus control strategies

Pups develop early fear response

Pups slower to develop fear response

Slower development of fear response creates greater window of opportunity for control strategies

Animals show greater fear of humans and avoid human contact

Animals show less fear of humans and may pose a greater threat to humans

Less fear of humans may increase opportunities for control

These differences in behaviour present challenges for wild dog control. The greater the proportion of domestic dog genes or feral domestic dogs in the wild dog population, the faster they are likely to breed and numbers increase. It is possible that they may also display less fear of humans. This trend may be reflected in the increasing threat to people in peri-urban areas.


Image P Jesser

Increasing domestic dog genes in their makeup may lead to wild dogs showing less fear of humans. Such animals may appear frequently around human habitation and even use busy roads as part of their movement corridors.

As wild dog breeding patterns become less predictable, it becomes more difficult to tailor control activities for maximum effect at times such as breeding season or when pups are being weaned. This needs to be taken into account when developing control programs. There is also a body of opinion which holds that wild dogs are more indiscriminate killers than pure dingoes. Wild dogs – whether pure dingoes or hybrids – are opportunistic feeders that will generally scavenge or prey upon whatever is available. This does not mean that some individual wild dogs will not display preferences in hunting wild game or killing domestic stock. But the best survival strategy for any wild dog is to scavenge or kill whatever is easiest.

Unfortunately, where killing is too easy – as with small or defenceless domestic stock – killing may become an end in itself with little or no part of the animal consumed. But with uncontrolled domestic dogs which may occasionally be used for hunting, it is certainly the case that these animals will sometimes engage in killing for the sake of killing and can be a major problem in peri-urban areas. This indiscriminate killing can have significant impacts on native wildlife such as bandicoots and koalas.

Image P Jesser

A Dorper/Merino cross lamb killed and eaten by wild dogs. More lambs were killed on the same night but were not eaten.

As with changes to breeding patterns, wild and other uncontrolled dogs that become indiscriminate killers of livestock or wildlife are more difficult to target because it is difficult to predict where they will be active next. In addition, they are often active in, or operate from, areas such as State Forests or National Parks where the ability to apply controls may be restricted.


Wild dog control and associated pest strategies Foxes and feral cats are significant pests in the Gympie region (Gympie Times 28 May 2009, 17 May 2012, 11 May 2013, 4 October 2013; Sunshine Coast Daily 18 June 2006). While they may not be present in large numbers in all areas, they are often encountered in areas close to habitation where food supplies are easy to obtain. This includes council rubbish tips and domestic sources of waste or pet food. Some believe wild dogs suppress foxes and feral cats by competing for food and even preying on them. Research has shown that, while some may be killed by wild dogs, these competitors are not noticeably reduced in number by the presence of dingoes (Fleming et al. 2012). However, for a “best practice” outcome in feral animal control, strategies should target these pests together with wild dogs to mitigate the effects of any emerging imbalance in feral predator species.

Image P Jesser

Image P Jesser

A “best practice” outcome in feral animal control should target feral cats and foxes as well as wild dogs. Feral cats and foxes can also be caught in traps set for wild dogs.

Wild dogs prey on feral deer and to a lesser extent feral pigs, and this can affect attitudes to wild dog control. Feral pigs are a major pest in macadamia production (Gympie Times 6 October 2010, 24 November 2010, 28 November 2012a, 11 October 2012). Feral pigs also cause other damage to livestock and agricultural crops (Gympie Times 7 December 2012b; Sunshine Coast Daily 17 February 2010).


Image GRC

Feral pigs are a major agricultural pest. They damage crops and can kill small and defenceless livestock.

Macadamia farmers may be less committed to wild dog control as they believe wild dogs may assist in controlling feral pigs. But wild dog control programs are less likely to achieve “best practice” objectives unless they are teamed with feral pig control in areas where feral pigs are a problem. Foxes are highly susceptible to wild dog control programs (particularly 1080 baiting) however they can also hinder wild dog control programs by taking and caching numerous baits intended for wild dogs. Foxes generally have smaller territories that are overlapped by wild dogs’ territories and foxes cover their territories more often than wild dogs cover their larger territories. Best practice suggests that two baiting runs, only a few weeks apart can assist in removing many foxes (with the first baiting run) from an area. This increases the chances that wild dogs will find the baits from the second baiting run. Feral deer also cause damage to agricultural crops and the environment. When present in large numbers they can be a significant pest. However, some landholders also derive significant income from feral deer through the sale of hunting access. These landholders may support wild dog control because of the impact that wild dogs have on deer. They may be less inclined to engage in feral deer control when they have an economic interest in the continuing presence of deer, but “best practice” outcomes in wild dog control should include feral deer control in areas where feral deer populations may reach pest proportions.

Image GRC

Feral deer can be a significant agricultural and environmental pest. Wild dogs can have some impact on feral deer populations. “Best practice” outcomes in wild dog control will require feral deer control to be implemented as part of an integrated pest control program.


Sub-regional differences summarised earlier suggest the integration of different combinations of feral pest control strategies for different sub-regions to obtain “best practice” outcomes not just in wild dog control, but with other feral pests. Techniques for wild dog control The most common strategies for wild dog control are poison baiting, trapping, shooting, exclusion fencing, good animal husbandry and aversion (DEEDI 2011; DNRM 2002). Surveillance can be added to these strategies as an intelligence gathering process which increases effectiveness in the implementation of some strategies. Each of the strategies has its advantages and disadvantages. Each also has some limitations in the areas where it can be implemented. Table 2 sets out the advantages and disadvantages for each of the strategies. A range of regulatory requirements directly and indirectly affects some control strategies. For poison baiting, a landholder is required to notify landholders (in accordance with regulations) within a two kilometre radius that baits will be laid during a specified period. This becomes increasingly difficult as the average size of landholdings in an area decreases. Failure to notify has resulted in prosecution (Gympie Times 22 September 2007). Baiting is an emotive issue with many individuals and groups regularly voicing their objections to baiting campaigns (Sunshine Coast Daily 14 October 2011, 9 July 2013, 26 September 2013). Trapping is also an emotive issue which can attract media attention if trapped animals are in public view. There is an increased likelihood of this occurring in closely settled areas. More problematic is the matter of euthanising trapped wild dogs or other feral animals. Unless specialised services are available to euthanase the animal by other means, shooting is the usual means of elimination.


Image P Jesser

Image P Jesser

Trapping can be an effective wild dog control strategy. Traps should be checked at least once a day and any trapped animal humanely euthanased.

The use of firearms is restricted to those licensed to possess and use them. There are also restrictions on the use of firearms in closely settled areas. This means that dealing with trapped animals in closely settled areas is likely to place some responsibility on council officers to deal with the captured animal (Gympie Times 5 June 2009; Sunshine Coast Daily 15 July 2009, 27 January 2010). Some local governments do perform this function. However, at this time, GRC does not provide this level of service. Nevertheless, trapping may be an appropriate wild dog control strategy in more sparsely settled areas. To this end, trapping education is generally provided with other information on pest control days (see, for example, Gympie Times 26 September 2013).

20


Table 2

Wild dog control strategies – advantages and disadvantages

Strategy Remarks Advantages Disadvantages

Poison baiting (1080)

Widely used strategy which is considered “best practice” pest management, but can be controversial due to some misinformation that is still circulating regarding 1080.

• Cover wide areas quickly and comparatively economically

• Targets foxes as well as wild dogs • Can also reduce feral cat numbers • Poison (1080) breaks down relatively

quickly in the environment • Non-target species mostly not

susceptible to 1080 poisoning

• Less useful in closely settled areas because of requirement to inform landholders within 2 km radius

• Cannot usually be undertaken within 5 km of townships

• Opposition to 1080 use and baiting generally • Difficult to accurately measure success

Trapping Requires some expertise and commitment; trapping schools may build expertise (Gympie Times 26 September 2013)

• A catch is a ‘known’ kill • Non-target species can be released if

caught

• More restricted in closely settled areas because captured animals must be destroyed, generally requiring the use of a firearm

• Requires considerable time commitment to check traps daily

Shooting Requires licensed shooters • An animal which is shot is a ‘known’ kill

• Non-target species are not at risk

• Time-consuming and labour intensive • Expertise is required for ‘howling’ or using predator

calls to attract wild dogs • Requires good marksmanship if wild dogs are to be

eradicated and not just ‘educated’ • Generally not suitable in closely settled areas

21


Table 2 (continued ….)

Wild dog control strategies – advantages and disadvantages

Exclusion fencing Effective if fences are maintained

• Very effective in suitable terrain • Can be used to exclude a range of

pests • Effectiveness increased if used in

conjunction with electric wire

• Expensive • If not maintained soon becomes ineffective

Good animal husbandry

Requires a combination of strategies, usually including exclusion fencing

• Can protect young animals if stock moved behind exclusion fencing at calving or lambing time

• May be expensive to establish, but economical to maintain the system

• Requires effective stock management (breeding times, etc)

• Can be expensive to set up if exclusion fencing or shedding needs to be constructed

Aversion Use of guard animals such as dogs, donkeys or alpacas

• Can be effective if guard animals are well managed

• Guard dogs should be de-sexed • Not suited to large area management over

numerous properties

Surveillance Monitoring activity (e.g. dog tracks and other sign) and use of remote cameras.

• Can be used to target specific animals • Can give an indication of relative

numbers of various species (if used correctly)

• Time involved in swapping memory cards and batteries

• Time involved in viewing many thousands of photos

• Time involved in collating information from cameras and disseminating it across the region to all relevant stakeholders

22


Shooting is usually a more opportunistic means of wild dog control. While animals may be called up by ‘howling’ or using predator calls, calling wild dogs up requires considerable expertise. Good marksmanship is also required to ensure the animal is humanely eliminated and not just ‘educated’. Young dogs seeking new territories are also more vulnerable, being inexperienced and on the move in unfamiliar territory. There are recreational hunting groups which have developed these skills in members and require members to maintain high standards of marksmanship. These organisations can offer services to landholders.

Image P Jesser

Shooting is an opportunistic means of wild dog control. But hunters with the ability to ’howl‘ wild dogs up or use predator calls effectively can make shooting a useful addition to wild dog control strategies.

Exclusion fencing can be effective but the expense of such fencing is an issue for many landholders. The expense is not just the initial cost of erecting the fence, but the ongoing maintenance cost. In areas where only one side of the fence is cleared and maintained as a cleared edge, falling timber can damage a fence and enable wild dogs to cross. Exclusion fencing therefore requires a commitment by landholders on both sides of the fence to maintain firebreaks and deal with fallen timber. This can be an issue where a landholder adjoins State-owned land. Good animal husbandry requires exclusion fencing and/or protective shedding for stock. If exclusion fencing can be used to enclose smaller areas where stock can calve or lamb in safety, this can be a more economical option than boundary fencing. Effective stock management to control calving or lambing times is required to make this strategy effective. Opponents of wild dog control will often point to animal husbandry practices as the preferred option for dealing with the problem. But this strategy is more a means of managing or minimising stock losses than complete prevention. Aversion animals are suitable in some situations and as an adjunct to good animal husbandry practices. Guard dogs must be de-sexed to prevent cross-breeding with wild

23


dogs. Donkeys have been useful in some situations, but the temperament of the individual donkey is the key issue. Not all donkeys are natural dog killers. Alpacas have also been useful in some areas. As with donkeys, it is the temperament of the animal which is critical. There are documented accounts of wild dogs killing alpacas. In one case this appears to have occurred after the alpacas had been shorn and lost its protective wool. Surveillance is a necessary tool for “best practice” wild dog control. Checking for fresh tracks and scats should be a routine part of a wild dog control program. In recent years, the declining cost of remote motion sensor cameras has added a new dimension to surveillance. A camera positioned on a well used movement corridor can be used in some cases to identify individual wild dogs and to confirm whether a particular animal has been eliminated.

Image P Jesser

Image P Jesser

Surveillance requires active monitoring for tracks and scats to identify wild dog movements and territories. Remote motion sensor cameras enable the landholder to keep watch 24 hours a day. Above right is a motion sensor camera image of a wild dog taken at night (infra-red exposure). Remote cameras identified the pattern of this animal’s movements, leading to its eventual elimination.

Surveillance can also be integrated on a regional scale if landholders input observations in to the Feral Scan website which is partnered by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resouce Economics and Sciences and the Invasive Animals CRC (Cooperative Research Centre). The site (http://www.feralscan.org.au/) maps feral pest data for a major pest species. Mapping is currently available for rabbits, wild dogs, foxes, feral pigs, mynas, cane toads, camels, feral goats, mice and starlings. Mapping for feral deer and feral fish is under development. Wild dog mapping can be accessed at http://www.feralscan.org.au/wilddogscan/default.aspx

http://www.feralscan.org.au/

http://www.feralscan.org.au/wilddogscan/default.aspx

24


The Feral Scan site is potentially one of the most useful tools for landholders working together to map feral pest sightings and activity, and develop pest strategies on both a local and regional scale. None of the wild dog control strategies outlined here are viable solutions to the wild dog problem if used in isolation. The object of wild dog control is to implement, as far as possible, a ‘nil tenure’ approach to wild dog control. The strategies used in combination can be used to achieve ‘nil tenure’. Baiting must be employed at all times, particularly when wild dogs are most vulnerable: for example, when pups are being weaned. All control measures can be used to disrupt pack structures and territorial integrity. Wild dogs which are forced to move because of trapping or hunting pressure, or to find new mates, become more vulnerable because they often have to move and hunt in unfamiliar territory. Exclusion fencing and good animal husbandry are effectively the screens from behind which eradication strategies can be implemented. When other pest control strategies (such as feral pig and feral deer control) are implemented in the same area, the removal of a possible food source can disrupt normal hunting patterns and add to the lack of security for wild dogs.

Further Information regarding Fluoroacetate (1080) and how it works can be located on Biosecurity Queensland website http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/71680/IPA-Wild-Dog-Fact-Sheet-1080.pdf

Wild dog action workshops Council has played, and continues to play an integral part in the Gympie region community’s wild dog control effort through providing 1080 baiting services and foot-hold trap loans, as well as providing advice to affected landholders helping to identify the best control options available. Council has regular contact with wild dog affected landholders. Identified through this sharing of information is the need for more specific and targeted information dissemination and greater landholder involvement, particularly when it comes to achieving ‘landscape’ wild dog control. It has also come to council’s attention that, at times, misinformation and lack of correct (or the most appropriate) wild dog control options has led to some landholders either not participating or attempting to control wild dogs using outdated or inefficient methods.

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/71680/IPA-Wild-Dog-Fact-Sheet-1080.pdf

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/71680/IPA-Wild-Dog-Fact-Sheet-1080.pdf

25


Whilst it is widely recognised and understood that landholders have the responsibility for declared pest management on their land, it is also recognised that the correct techniques and methods should be utilised in order to achieve effective control. Council aims to provide information and skills to landholders to enable them to select and execute the most effective control options available to them. Council’s ‘Weeds and Pest Advisory Committee’ has assisted with the formulation of this plan, and provided input as to how council can achieve best results in assisting landholders to control wild dogs. To achieve this, council has developed a strategy to facilitate ‘Wild Dog Workshops’ across the region. Funding to run these ‘Wild Dog Workshops’ has been sourced through a State Government funding arrangement, which is additional funding specifically for the purpose of running the proposed workshops. The workshops are a ‘Pilot Program’ and council will gauge the interest and success of the workshops when considering more activities in future. These workshops have been tailored to achieve:

• better rates of Wild Dog control participation by landholders (1080 and other control options)

• more coordination of control efforts regionally and with contiguous regions

• best practice control efforts with a science-based approach to implementation and monitoring

• a better informed stakeholder community

• more ownership of project outcomes by stakeholders

• a long-term flow-on effect of setting up programs.

The sub-regional breakup of the Gympie region, and the social and economic differences within those regions, suggests that workshops to further develop wild dog control syndicates should be held with stakeholders in three areas:

• Tansey Community Hall (to service the Goomeri/Kilkivan sub-region)

• Kandanga RSL Hall (to service the Mary Valley sub-region and peri-urban areas of Gympie City)

• Wolvi Community Hall (to service the Eastern/Coastal sub-region). Workshops should accommodate about 100 attendees and cover:

• the ‘nil tenure’ approach to wild dog control (all strategies to be discussed)

• baiting advice and demonstrations

• trapping techniques and demonstrations

26


• contacts for assistance with trapping and/or shooting wild dogs

• council advice and support for dealing with declared pests in closely settled (peri-urban) areas

• exclusion fencing displays and advice

• associated pest strategies (particularly feral pig control)

• landholders should be encouraged to utilise good trappers

• provision of free wild dog traps for workshop attendees. It is anticipated that council will provide one free dog trap for every registered and eligible attendee (over 18 years of age) at the end of each workshop. There will be a maximum number of traps per workshop and preference will be given to Gympie regional landholders. Other considerations may apply to eligibility to receive a free trap

• building on existing syndicates, syndicates be formed from volunteers and based on geographical location (such as catchments).

This plan and the proposed workshops are consistent with council’s Pest Management Plan and its operational objectives. Council’s current Pest Management Plan can be found at: www.gympie.qld.gov.au/weeds-and-declared-plants-control Communication and coordination The Paroo Model of Wild Dog Control (Southwest Regional Economic Development Association 2011) demonstrates the success that can be achieved through community ownership of wild dog control. This model can be found at:

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ParooModel_WildDogControl.pdf&sa=U&ei=RfPWU5KpFs3g8AXZzIDYCQ&ved=0CBsQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHQFtFotLL56wLzLZpOo7H8fg739w

The Gympie Region Wild Dog Control Plan is similarly premised on landholders and land managers communicating and working together to achieve effective control. In other words “think regionally, act locally” on wild dog control. To achieve this end, council will encourage landholders and land managers to form wild dog control syndicates to coordinate wild dog and other vertebrate pest control strategies in

http://www.gympie.qld.gov.au/weeds-and-declared-plants-control




27


their areas. The areas covered by syndicates should be identified within the council’s pest mapping system. Syndicate coordinators should be identified with the role of encouraging participation in wild dog control and communicating with GRC baiting operators as necessary to facilitate baiting programs. Syndicate coordinators and council baiting operators will facilitate meetings of landholders and other interested parties twice a year (just prior to each baiting program) to review current wild dog control activities and consider plans for the forthcoming control period. Council baiting operators will convey to the Lands Protection Manager any issues arising from wild dog syndicate meetings which should be noted or may require a response from Council. Council’s Weeds and Pests Advisory Committee will also be consulted through this process. Working with council, syndicate coordinators will encourage wide community participation in wild dog control and champion the ‘nil tenure’ approach to wild dog control in the Gympie region. Key actions to be delivered Key actions to be delivered in the first twelve months of the control program should include:

• continued development of a flexible and responsive wild dog management among landholders and other key stakeholders, implemented through the syndicates and with the support of council where appropriate (particularly in peri-urban environments)

• monitor changes in syndicate baiting practices and other pest control programs to identify successful strategies

• increase access to commercial ‘manufactured’ 1080 baits for landholders

• simplify the notification system for use of 1080 products for wild dog (and feral pig)

management. Council can assist through provision of contact details of landholders within the notification area/s so the syndicate coordinators can streamline their process

28


• request the State Government to implement baiting in remote areas

• work with all stakeholders to promote local approaches to wild dog management

• continue to develop local syndicates for wild dog control

• implement processes for distributing relevant wild dog information to syndicates

(through the syndicate coordinator)

• consider new ways to enhance wild dog control, including publicising the latest relevant research to landholders.

These key actions will be monitored and reviewed on an ongoing basis as these new initiatives develop over time.

29


Definitions

CRC Cooperative Research Centre

GRC Gympie Regional Council

nil tenure An approach where a range of control measures are applied across all tenures by all stakeholders at a ‘landscape’ (rather than a ‘property’) level in a cooperative and coordinated manner. This approach focuses on mapping and information gathered from landholders to identify areas of wild dog habitat, movement corridors, historical and recent stock loss and current control. Replacing boundaries on the map following the information collection process clearly identifies the responsibilities of each stakeholder with regard to wild dog management in the area. (DEEDI 2011).

Ramsar Indicates land protected under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar Convention) which was signed in Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971

wild dog In this plan, the term ‘wild dog’ is assumed to include:

• feral dogs; • feral dog/dingo hybrids; and • free-roaming dogs which cause similar damage to feral dogs.

30


References: Corbett, L. 2001. The Dingo in Australia and Asia. J.B. Books: Marleston, S.A. DEEDI (Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation). 2010. Wild Dog

Management Strategy: Consultation Draft. Queensland Government. DEEDI (Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation). 2011.Wild Dog

Management Strategy 2011-2016. DNRM (Department of Natural Resources and Mines). 2002 Wild dogs/dingo – Canis

familiaris/Canis familiaris (dingo). Queensland Wild Dog Management Strategy September 2002.

Fleming, P., Allen B, Ballard, G. and Allen, L. November 2012. “Wild dog ecology, impacts and

management in northern Australian cattle enterprises: a review with recommendations for RD&E investments”. Meat & Livestock Australia: North Sydney.

Invasive Animals CRC. 2012. PestSmart Factsheet: Distribution of pure dingoes and dingo-dog

hybrids in Australia, WDFS6. Invasive Animals CRC. 2011. PestSmart: Working plan to manage wild dogs, Green Book, 2nd

Edition. NSW Department of Environment and Heritage. 2012. Wild Dog Management 2010-11. Office

of Environment and Heritage: Sydney. Purcell, B. 2010. Dingo. CSIRO: Collingwood, VIC. Southwest Regional Economic Development Association. 2011. The Paroo Model of Wild Dog

Control. South West RED. Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. 2008. Mammals of Australia, 3rd edition. CSIRO and Australian

Museum. VIC Department of Environment and Primary Industries. 2013. Action Plan for Managing Wild

Dogs in Victoria 2014 – 2019. State of Victoria.

31


Newspaper Articles: Gympie Times

22 September 2007 “Dog baiting catches man a fine” 24 November 2007 “New calf survives vicious attack” 19 September 2008 “Be dingo aware on Fraser Island” 28 May 2009 “Fox kills pet” 5 June 2009 “Dingo evades hunter’s noose” 17 July 2009 “Wild dog season’s dangers” 5 August 2009 “Wild dog woes” 20 March 2010 “What’s wrong with Fraser dingoes?” 4 September 2010 “Dingoes butcher prized sheep” 6 October 2010 “Pigs drive macadamia farmer nuts” 24 November 2010 “Feral pigs drive farmers nuts” 28 October 2011 “Wild dogs run amok” 26 November 2011 “Family pet attacked by wild dogs” 7 April 2012 “Mating season for dingoes” 17 May 2012 “Feral cats on Fraser Island” 5 June 2012 “Dog bug a threat to cattle” 28 November 2012 “Growing feral pig problem drives Gympie farmer nuts” 7 December 2012 “Wild pigs devour breeder calf at Gympie High School” 7 December 2012 “Feral pigs too close to home” 11 May 2013 “Big, vicious feral cat attacks budgie man” 22 May 2013 “GPS tracks roaming wild dogs” 25 July 2013 “Feral cat, goanna numbers not affected by dingo cull: report” 26 September 2013 “Burnett landholders arm themselves to fight wild dogs” 4 October 2013 “Feral cats are still a problem: Cr Julie Walker” 11 October 2013 “’Explosion’ of feral pigs targeting our nuts”

32


Sunshine Coast Daily

12 September 2004 “Roving dogs ‘killing wild life’” 16 February 2005 “Dingo packs’ savage toll” 24 February 2005 “Dingoes savage family pet” 18 June 2006 “Coast being outfoxed” 21 January 2007 “Dingo scare at school” 26 September 2007 “Don’t feed wild dog pups, warns council” 23 March 2009 “’Dingoes’ attack Yandina man and his dog” 24 March 2009 “Dalmation no match for dingoes” 27 March 2009 “Sheep killed in wild dog attack” 14 July 2009 “More calves mauled” 15 July 2009 “Council to trap and kill wild dogs” 8 September 2009 “Fraser Island dingoes at risk: Elmes” 27 January 2010 “Animal trapper hunting wild dogs” 17 February 2010 “Big piggy on council hit list” 14 July 2010 “Aggressive wild dog warning” 9 August 2010 “Feral dogs biggest threat to koalas” 7 September 2010 “Dingo spied in Kawana Forest” 24 May 2011 “Palmwoods on dangerous dog alert” 30 August 2011 “Calf mauling prompts baiting plea” 14 October 2011 “Baiting angers dog lovers” 1 April 2012 “Attacking dingoes all part of pack” 24 April 2012 “Wild dogs are out of control” 31 May 2012 “Wild dogs terrorise Eerwah” 28 August 2012 “Dog link in coast koala’s death” 5 March 2013 “Family shattered after wild dogs go on killing frenzy” 11 May 2013 “Anger at council inaction as three sheep mauled by dingoes” 23 May 2013 “Eyeing data on man’s best friend” 9 July 2013 “Baiting risk to Sunshine Coast pets, vet warns” 19 September 2013 “Feral dogs big issue” 26 September 2013 “Ban baiting” 9 February 2014 “Clock’s ticking for koalas on coast” 10 February 2014 “Wild dogs helping to kill off our koalas”

Sydney Morning Herald

2 May 2001 “The dingoes took our precious Clinton: Father's grief for his warm-hearted boy”

Documents

Gympie Region Wild Dog Control Plan...Gympie Regional Council – Wild Dog Control Plan behavioural differences may have for wild dog control. Wild dog and other pest control strategies