Enhancing operational flexibility

Effectively reducing the negative impacts of wild dogs can only be achieved if all land managers (public and private) work together as part of an integrated program using all available control techniques that are safe, effective, humane and environmentally sustainable.

The Wild Dog Control Program is encouraged to introduce Canid Pest Ejectors (CPE) and enable appropriately trained individual private landholders (who are impacted by wild dogs) to undertake and assist with baiting and trapping on neighbouring public land.

It is also suggested that, if it is decided to reduce the time a government agent may leave an animal alive in a trap used for wild dog control from a maximum of 72 hours to either 48 or 24 hours, the Wild Dog Control Program considers increasing the use of casuals to maintain service delivery commitments.

Revising the service delivery commitment protocol, that outlines that reactive control activities should continue for up to 30 days after the last livestock attack, could enable the redirection of resources into proactive control measures and improve the flexibility of responses to attacks by wild dogs. The extent to which this would be possible would subject to budget constraints.

Continuous improvement through research

There are opportunities to address gaps in knowledge with respect to: a) non-targets impacted by baiting and trapping, b) the impact of varying baiting regimes and the efficacy of using CPEs to control wild dogs on public land, c) the potential to use surveillance technologies to reduce the level of physical inspections of traps and d) the uptake and cost effectiveness of non-lethal measures.

Future design considerations

There are several key design considerations that could be pursued to improve the operation of the Wild Dog Control Program. These are discussed below.

The Wild Dog Control Program could sharpen the focus of control efforts and aid the determination of the program budget and the mix of control measures to guide operations across the State. In particular, there is an opportunity to clarify the preferred mix of reactive and proactive control measures.

Moreover, one of the key strategic issues to consider is the relative importance of reducing the overall dog population in the 3 kilometre buffer zone as against stopping dogs from travelling onto private properties. Additionally, there is a benefit in DEDJTR clarifying the obligations of government in undertaking reasonable wild dog control measures . Escalating the importance of these actions within the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria provides the means to achieve this.

Program assessment and reporting

Opportunities to further improve processes to analyse information that is being collected to inform program delivery include:

moving towards greater seasonal reporting, and

incorporating into reporting processes a number of performance indicators developed in this report including: bait nights; trap nights or trap checks; and a range of input to output to outcome effectiveness indicators and regionally grouped indicators.

Greater operational flexibility and performance be created by pursuing a range of reforms, including:

enabling those not setting traps to inspect traps. This may involve reviewing legislative arrangements of related legislation such as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA);

reviewing workplace arrangements with a view to increasing the capacity of the program to more fully utilise casual labour in control activities, noting that this is limited to some extent by budget constraints. This may become particularly relevant if the trap inspection time is reduced from 72 to 48 or 24 hours;

revising the program’s service offer to private land owners, where consistent with the requirement to determine the government’s obligations. This has the potential to enable the redirection of resources into proactive control or other measures and reduce the requirement to respond to attacks by providing reactive trapping activities;

rapidly addressing impediments to the deployment of CPEs by the public program; and

enabling appropriately trained individual private landholders who are impacted to undertake baiting and trapping on neighbouring public land.

Additionally, there is benefit in reviewing current control measure settings in 12 months’ time to assess if observable trends emerge in relation to the level of control and wild dog attack.

There are opportunities to address gaps in knowledge. Research could be undertaken to enable improved optimisation of alternative control measures and balancing of other policy objectives. Research could include:

identifying the levels of target and non-target species take of baiting programs;

examining the efficiency and effectiveness of targeting problem dogs with traps;

undertaking localised pilots to assess the impact of more intensive baiting regimes and the efficacy of CPEs;

exploring remote surveillance technologies to reduce the level of on-site inspections; and

undertaking further research and data collection to properly assess the uptake and cost effectiveness of non-lethal measures.

.
1.Stocktake of other jurisdictions

1.1Key Australian jurisdictions

There is a wide diversity of approaches to wild dog management across jurisdictions. An overview of some of the key features of wild dog control arrangements across selected jurisdictions is provided in Table .

Some key points of differentiation with other states is that Victoria has the most centrally organised and operated public control program and is the only jurisdiction where there is a custom and practice for public control activities to be undertaken in response to attacks on private land.

Under the Management Zone Work Plans, DELWP has committed to the following response process for killed, maimed or harassed livestock:

a landholder visit by a wild dog controller where required, within 72 hours of all incident reports involving stock maimed, killed or harassed (subject to legal requirements for wild dog controllers to service baits or traps within the mandated 14/30 day and 72hr regulations respectively);

verification of stock death due to wild dog attack and wild dog movement;

provision of advice to landholders on immediate actions to be taken to mitigate further losses (i.e. livestock management, landholder control);

assessment of current control in the area and any modifications needed; and

implementation of additional control using reactive tools and techniques such as trapping, opportunistic shooting and baiting if required.

Also under the work plans reactive wild dog control services may be withdrawn 30 days after the last livestock attack, the provision of advice and proactive works in the surrounding region will continue.

In practice the outcome of these arrangements together with trap inspection requirements is that commonly the majority of a wild dog controller’s weekly roster comprises reactive trapping. Our discussions indicate that the level of reactive control provided is a function of a number of factors including:

reactive control inputs and outputs are more visible and tangible to the local community;

operational staff interpretation of the government’s obligation to undertake reasonable efforts of control;

the interaction of a range of associated regulatory requirements (such as trap inspection times and labour force arrangements) that require absolute compliance with trapping regulations within weekly labour force rostering; and

community expectations of individual wild dog controllers that are extremely difficult to manage under current circumstances without a definition of the role of government.

This is not to say that reactive control is the most efficient and effective response. A central issue in this report is the relative balance of reactive (trapping) and proactive (baiting) control and the extent to which existing arrangements affect the capacity of the program to alter this balance.

Victoria has a public control program that accounts for the major component of the jurisdiction’s overall direct control program activity.¹ In part this reflects the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 requirements for public land managers to manage the pests that occupy its land and impact on its neighbours. In most other jurisdictions (directly reflecting the location of dogs on private land) private control accounts for most of the control activity with public measures being generally complementary and ancillary. In some jurisdictions, the costs of direct control are shared 50:50 between the landholder and the government.

In part, this reflects the scale and scope of land tenures and the nature of the wild dog problem in other jurisdictions. In jurisdictions, such as Western Australia and Queensland, farm size and distance from public land means there are greater incentives to undertake private control and there are more practical limitations to some forms of on-ground public control. Reflecting some of these practicalities there are, in some cases, fewer considerations affecting the design of program operations — with wider use of lethal traps and longer inspection times. However, some of these arrangements will cease in the future under national operational protocols.

In a number of jurisdictions there is greater local autonomy on setting and delivering program priorities on public and private land, especially where co-contribution of funds is realised through levies and other mechanisms. This reflects the broader scale of farming in some areas and in the case of NSW, broader institutional changes that have resulted in the delivery of most public land management activities through Local Land Boards.

Victoria also has a number of operational considerations that affect the design of the public control program, these include among others:

community expectations and requirements to undertake reactive measures in preference to proactive measure;

limits on the use of some control measures; and

defined areas in which operations can be undertaken.

Reflecting the significance of public control effort, Victoria has the most comprehensive data on the wild dog control inputs, outputs and outcomes. In most jurisdictions there is very little or no public data on key program operations and outcomes.
Table Summary of the management arrangement for wild dogs across selected jurisdictions

	Victoria	New South Wales	Western Australia	Queensland
Nature of wild dog program
Topography	Predominantly hilly/alpine	Hilly and Rangelands Perception public land contributing to private land predation in Great Dividing Range areas	Broad-acre range land	Rangelands, broad-acre, hilly and flat
Farm type	Sheep and cattle	Sheep and cattle	Sheep and cattle	Sheep and cattle
Legislation and responsibilities
Public land responsibility	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Legislated responsibility for private landholders to undertake control	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Responsibility for public control program on public land following attacks on private land	No DELWP determines what level of service delivery is required with respect to reports of wild dog attacks.	No	No	No
Private control activities allowed on public land	Yes, 3km buffer	No, under Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 Public Land Act	No	Yes, on stock routes with appropriate authority
Restrictions on private control on public land	3km buffer with no control measure exclusion	NA	Only authorised officer allowed to bait on public land	?
Nil tenure	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Governance arrangements and reporting
Policy framework	Action Plan- (A policy framework sits above it)	Policy Statement	New strategy about to be released. Good neighbour approach – control in borders of managed public land estate and whole public estate where the affected area is small	Wild Dog Strategy – weed and pest animal strategy sits above it
Operational institution	DELWP	Land Services Boards	Department of Parks and Wildlife — public land Department of Agriculture and Food, Recognised Biosecurity Groups— private land	QLD Parks and Wildlife Service and local government
Policy institution	DEDJTR	Department of Industries – Agriculture portfolio	Department of Agriculture and Food	Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Accountable portfolio Minister	Agriculture	Agriculture	Agriculture	Agriculture
Operational measurement and reporting	Yes, real time in-field	Yes, post field Reposition and developing new KPI framework – ha of area under plan and reduction in report incident	No, for parks and wildlife Varies by DSG because of various funding requirements. RBG produce range of output measures.	No, State collation may be some local measurement
Public performance assessment	Quarterly	No	No	No
Key performance indicators	Multiple indicators under Quarterly report. Primary indicator reduction in reported do attacks	Hectare under plan (and cost sharing) Reduction in report predation	Only for specific RBG program	None
Stakeholder feedback	Advisory Committee, Regional forums	Yes, Local Community Advisory Groups Feed into Local Board and Chairs Local Board form State-wide Board.	No, but new Action Plan recommends an Advisory Board be established	QDog, Local government industry and environmental reps – report to invasive plants and animals committee of Biosecurity Qld
Operating arrangements
Zone management	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local government establish local control groups. Biosecurity officers act as coordinators
Public delivery mechanism	Yes, The state Wild Dog Control Program and WDMZs service offer	Local Land Service Groups	Coordination mechanism on private land to DSGs. RBGS same process	Coordination of local government
Practice change program	Yes, baiting coordinator project Training for farmers in control techniques Funded through AWI	Desire to reduce the reliance on local manage services and need for more private activity	Run in conjunction with RBGs and DSG. DAFWA extension program where there is no establish group	Predator control days run by industry. Extension and communications provided by Biosecurity Queensland and local government and industry
Public coordination of public and private baiting programs	Yes	yes	Yes	Yes
Use of flexible labour and contractors	Yes	Yes, Land services Boards manages contract	Yes, but varies by Regional Group	Unclear
Public control has surge force capability	Yes	No, but national Parks do pest control and land management services t	Yes, but varies by Regional Group	?
Control measures
Public trapping	Yes	Yes	Yes, southern range lands – licensed technicians – employed by RBG and DSG via Royalties for Regions Funding	Yes, (Qld Parks and Wildlife Service and Local government)
Maximum inspection time for trapping	72 hr	24 or 48 not 72 more expensive more overtime on weekends	None but must have strychnine on the trap. Private land must have completed restricted chemical training	Promote use of strychnine on traps where can’t be checked in 24 hours.
Canid pest ejectors used by public controllers	No, but likely to be available in next few months	Trialling	No, but likely to be available in next few months	Some local governments – but restricted because of concentration of 1080
Public shooting used by public controllers	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Public baiting program operated	Yes	Yes	Yes, in southern Rangeland	Yes, where assessed as safe to do so
Private bait provision	Yes	Yes	No, Landholder provides own meat. But private landholder can do own injecting after training	Yes, provide meat and authorised officers prepare the baits. Signed agreements are required for each baiting operation
Spring and Autumn seasonal baiting	Yes	Yes,	Yes	Yes
Remote ground baiting	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Aerial baiting	Yes	Yes	Yes, predominantly in northern Rangeland (Pilbara and Kimberly). Decreased in some southern Rangeland because considered not as effective.	Yes, not less in south east Queensland
Wild dog attack response management
Reporting mechanism	Direct to WDC	Report to local land services – phone1300/email	In Rangeland direct contact RBGs. In Agriculture zone contact DAFWA If part of DSG speak to DSG and local controller	Yes at local government level
Response time	24 hours	Depends on what the strategy is for the Local Plan e.g. some may require only advice.	No depends on individual group	No
Recording of incident	24 hours	No, but encouraged	Yes, in some regions	No
Recording of response	Yes	Yes, but not consistently applied across Local Boards	Yes, Spatial system incident reports - ‘Dogger Logger’ by DAFWA Biosecurity Officer liaising with DSG and RBGs	No
Reported number of attacks	Yes, through the Dogbytes database	No, system of central recording	Yes, individual through Pastoral lease reporting requirements – but no state-wide number reported	Some local government key data on the number of complaints
Program costs and funding
Public program expenditure	$5 million	Not known – surveyed in lead up to last election likely to be half the expenditure Victoria	Approximately $4.3 million	Not known
Private program expenditure	Approximately $5 million	Not known	Approximately $5 million	Not known
Cost sharing of direct public delivery costs	Yes, to a limited degree through the Baiting Coordinator Project No	Yes, depends on area size. Varies from plan to plan includes services in public and private	Yes, DSG can raise rates and match dollar for dollar No for RBG	Local government provide meat without cost. Subsidise cost of aircraft
Performance of wild dog program
Is the level of reported attack rising or falling	Generally falling	Focus is on strategy approach not outcome metrics	Only values losses - $6 million impact in range lands- incrementally increased - peaked in 2011 and started to rise again.	Not known
Number of dog dispatched	Known for public trapping and shooting Whole of program estimated using take assumptions	Not known	Not known	Not known