Dingo Conservation Research Articles

Best-practice dingo management: six lessons from K’gari (Fraser Island)

Canids across the world are involved in negative interactions between humans and their interests, with numerous examples of conflict management. K’gari (Fraser Island) and its dingo population are well known for the human-dingo conflict in the tourism and residential scenes. In this article, the successful management of such interactions is described through six key lessons learnt from over 20 years of adaptive management and its evolution into the current Fraser Island Dingo Conservation and Risk Management Strategy. These are (1) focus on people first, (2) understand local dingo ecology, (3) identify the pathway to intervention, (4) target dingo impacts, and prioritise behaviours and individuals, (5) work to a strategy (adaptive management), and (6) collaborate and engage with external stakeholders. This best-practice approach may be useful to managers of other populations of canids.

The violent-care of dingo conservation breeding

In 2019, a wild-born dingo pup named Wandi was taken from the Victorian high country to the Australian Dingo Foundation to become a part of their breeding program. Wandi was chosen because he was identified as a ‘rare’ ‘alpine’ dingo. At the point at which Wandi was handed over to the ADF, he became a captive dingo and will likely never be released. Wandi is one of thousands of dingoes who are bred and sold each year by the dingo breeding industry in Australia – both for zoos and wildlife parks to exhibit, and as privately owned ‘pets’. None of these dingoes can ever be released. Dingo captivity is often justified by dingo breeders as a necessary part of ‘essential’ conservation to combat the possible ‘extinction’ of the dingo. In this article, I question this assumption and demonstrate how it perpetuates and energises historically constructed distinctions between dingo ‘types’ (such as ‘alpine’ and ‘pure’). Here, I mobilise Thom van Dooren’s concept of ‘violent-care’ to better understand the contradictory ways in which dingoes experience life and captivity in Australia: ‘rare’ but a ‘pest’, charismatic and newsworthy but also imprisoned, evincing popular sentiments of affection and forced into captive breeding. I work with these contradictions every day as the founder of Sydney Fox and Dingo Rescue (SFDR). As dingo advocates, we have a responsibility to examine the violence dingoes experience as a result of captivity and the ‘logics’ and discourse that drive that violence, as van Dooren writes: ‘[w]hen the ‘logics’ that structure violence (or care for that matter) go unexamined, they become both invisible and commonsensical’ (van Dooren, ‘A Day with Crows’ 3).

There is no Dingo dilemma: legislation facilitates culling, containment and conservation of Dingoes in New South Wales

The perceived dilemma about Dingoes overly simplifies a complex “wicked problem”. Similarly, it is simplistic to suggest that to “cull, contain or conserve” Dingoes are mutually exclusive options or are the only options for managing Dingoes at a state-wide level. The legal instruments enacted and implemented in New South Wales (NSW) attempt to accommodate conflicting values, impacts and drivers. Since the first Dingo symposium in 1999, there has been a series of legislative changes pertaining to Dingo management. That legislation, and associated regulation and policy, addresses the management of Dingoes and other free-roaming dogs such that the dilemma is perceived rather than actual. The main new legal operand in New South Wales is the Biosecurity Act 2015, but other States have similar legislation. Here we outline the application of this Act and others to the management of Dingoes in NSW and conclude that they can be variously culled, contained and conserved, within and across large landscapes, depending on context and managers’ objectives.

The important role of private wildlife organisations in facilitating scientific research: A case study of the Australian Dingo Foundation

As we enter an era of global mass extinctions, it is important to tackle wildlife research and conservation from multiple fronts, including those made available by wildlife organisations, zoos and sanctuaries. Captive studies are particularly useful when studying free-ranging populations is difficult, and/or when controlled conditions are required. Yet, despite the significant role that they play in supporting research and conservation of species and ecosystems, they are rarely recognised in the scientific literature. Here we present a case study of the Australian Dingo Foundation (ADF), a private organisation and captive breeding facility that actively supports research and conservation efforts relating to the dingo (Canis dingo). Over the past decade (2010 to 2020), the ADF has facilitated research across eight research disciplines that include archaeology, behaviour, biology, cognition, evolutionary psychology, non-lethal management, reproduction and parental behaviour, and vocalisations. This has resulted in at least 21 published scientific studies which are summarised in this paper. As this case study demonstrates, captive facilities have the potential to contribute to the understanding and conservation of dingoes by providing practical alternatives to, and/or supplement studies of free-ranging populations. We conclude by outlining some of the implications and limitations of conducting research using captive dingo populations.

Contemporary dingo management on K’gari (Fraser Island, Great Sandy National Park) under the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

ABSTRACTK’gari (Fraser Island) is the world’s largest sand island, lying off the east coast of mainland Australia, approximately 300 km north of Brisbane, Queensland. The island is the ancestral home of the Butchulla people, who call it K’gari, meaning paradise, and they continue to be active participants in the management and protection of the island. K’gari (Fraser Island) also has a shared history of logging and sand mining, and was partly designated as a National Park in 1971 with further additions in the following years. In July 2013, the Queensland Government, through the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS), released the Fraser Island Dingo Conservation and Risk Management Strategy (FIDCRMS), which included a range of management approaches to promote the best outcomes for human safety and dingo welfare on K’gari (Fraser Island). The strategy presents four programmes: Risk Intervention, Communication and Education, Research and Evaluation and Review. Compliance is recognised as an integral part of the strategy. Here, we describe and distil two of these programmes (Risk Intervention and Communication and Education) from a practical, on-ground perspective.

Conservation implications for dingoes from the maternal and paternal genome: Multiple populations, dog introgression, and demography.

It is increasingly common for apex predators to face a multitude of complex conservation issues. In Australia, dingoes are the mainland apex predator and play an important role in ecological functioning. Currently, however, they are threatened by hybridization with modern domestic dogs in the wild. As a consequence, we explore how increasing our understanding of the evolutionary history of dingoes can inform management and conservation decisions. Previous research on whole mitochondrial genome and nuclear data from five geographical populations showed evidence of two distinct lineages of dingo. Here, we present data from a broader survey of dingoes around Australia using both mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers and investigate the timing of demographic expansions. Biogeographic data corroborate the presence of at least two geographically subdivided genetic populations, southeastern and northwestern. Demographic modeling suggests that dingoes have undergone population expansion in the last 5,000 years. It is not clear whether this stems from expansion into vacant niches after the extinction of thylacines on the mainland or indicates the arrival date of dingoes. Male dispersal is much more common than female, evidenced by more diffuse Y haplogroup distributions. There is also evidence of likely historical male biased introgression from domestic dogs into dingoes, predominately within southeastern Australia. These findings have critical practical implications for the management and conservation of dingoes in Australia; particularly a focus must be placed upon the threatened southeastern dingo population.

Balancing dingo conservation with human safety on Fraser Island: the numerical and demographic effects of humane destruction of dingoes

Australian dingoes are threatened by interbreeding with domestic dogs. As a refuge from further interbreeding, the conservation significance of dingoes on Fraser Island is unquestioned. However, some dingoes presenting genuine human safety risks are humanely destroyed. In this study, we explore the potential effects of this on the sustainability of the island's dingo population. Dingo abundance was 76–171 adult individuals during the mating (pre-whelping) season of 2012. A total of 110 dingoes were destroyed between 2001 and 2013. Approximately 66 per cent of known-age dingoes destroyed were <18 months old and 65 per cent of known-gender dingoes destroyed were male. In any given year, no more than four female dingoes of any age were destroyed during dingoes' annual mating and whelping seasons. On only one occasion was an adult (and subordinate) female dingo destroyed during this period. Available data therefore indicate that the spatially and temporally variable removal of so few female and/or adult animals from a population of this size is highly unlikely to have adverse effects on dingo population growth rates or breeding success. Adverse effects of humane destructions might be expected to increase if a substantially greater proportion of adult and/or female dingoes are targeted for destruction in the future.

Satellite tracking of wild dogs in south-eastern mainland Australian forests: Implications for management of a problematic top-order carnivore

Satellite tracking was used to follow the movements of a problematic top-order carnivore, the wild dog (Canis lupus dingo, C. lupus familiaris and their hybrids), in contiguous forested landscapes in south-eastern mainland Australia. Home range sizes of wild dogs were much larger than previously determined using conventional telemetry methods, averaging 10,000ha with a maximum size of 59,000ha over approximate 3-month periods. Wild dogs at sites with high abundance of kangaroos, wallabies and rabbits had smaller areas of occupancy than did dogs at sites with low availability of these preys. Despite mostly large home ranges, tracked animals were loyal to publicly-owned tenure and there were few instances where individuals moved large distances on to adjacent private tenure. Instead, movement behaviours of most tracked animals were characterised by repeated short distance forays, often at acute angles from previous locations. Consequently, home ranges were stable and otherwise well defined. Analysis of DNA from our study animals indicated that most individuals were of ‘dingo’ ancestry, but otherwise considered hybrids because of the presence of domestic dog genes. Only two of 24 animals could be considered as ‘pure’ dingo. Contemporary wild dog management demarcates lands where control is or is not undertaken, with the latter notionally acting to ‘conserve’ dingoes. Due to the large scale of movement of animals, existing control efforts likely impact over a greater area than previously suspected. Furthermore, our genetic findings suggest that conservation of dingoes in south-eastern mainland Australia is difficult to achieve. A modified approach to wild dog management is needed, taking account of the extent of range of individual animals and the existing genetic characteristics of populations.

A national framework for research on trophic regulation by the Dingo in Australia

There is increasing evidence that the Dingo Canis lupus dingo plays an important ecological role as a trophic regulator in Australian ecosystems. However, there is sufficient remaining uncertainty about the nature of this role as to hinder the development of effective management policies. This review defines strategic directions for future research on the trophic role of Dingoes by developing a national Dingo research framework. The framework aims to increase our knowledge of the influence that Dingoes have on the maintenance of biodiversity, thereby encouraging Dingo conservation and the refinement of current land-use practices. The framework begins by identifying four major bioclimatic zones across Australia that pose different questions and challenges for Dingo research. For each zone we construct a model that identifies major interactions between Dingoes and key prey or competitor species, and then used the models to identify key research needs, the possible advantages of maintaining Dingo populations within each zone, and ways to tease out unstudied interactions. Important questions identified in the review include the effects of Dingoes on native marsupial populations, vegetation communities, herbivore diets, the use of structural refugia by mesopredators, predator and prey behaviour, and the effect of habitat modification on these interactions. We briefly review legislative constraints and other factors, such as the ongoing hybridization of Dingo populations with domestic dog breeds, that may impede future studies. If research activities follow this framework, we believe that policy and management will be better informed, benefiting both the Dingo and the natural ecosystems and production systems where it occurs.

An evaluation of genetic analyses, skull morphology and visual appearance for assessing dingo purity: implications for dingo conservation

The introgression of domestic dog genes into dingo populations threatens the genetic integrity of ‘pure’ dingoes. However, dingo conservation efforts are hampered by difficulties in distinguishing between dingoes and hybrids in the field. This study evaluates consistency in the status of hybridisation (i.e. dingo, hybrid or dog) assigned by genetic analyses, skull morphology and visual assessments. Of the 56 south-east Queensland animals sampled, 39 (69.6%) were assigned the same status by all three methods, 10 (17.9%) by genetic and skull methods, four (7.1%) by genetic and visual methods; and two (3.6%) by skull and visual methods. Pair-wise comparisons identified a significant relationship between genetic and skull methods, but not between either of these and visual methods. Results from surveying 13 experienced wild dog managers showed that hybrids were more easily identified by visual characters than were dingoes. A more reliable visual assessment can be developed through determining the relationship between (1) genetics and phenotype by sampling wild dog populations and (2) the expression of visual characteristics from different proportions and breeds of domestic dog genes by breeding trials. Culling obvious hybrids based on visual characteristics, such as sable and patchy coat colours, should slow the process of hybridisation.