government of their duty of care and service expectations. Other jurisdictions deliver control primarily through private sector provision. On this public delivery model, Victoria has been able to construct a detailed system and methodology to describe, plan, execute and report on control activities on public and private land. At the control level, the Victorian Wild Dog Control Program comprises mainly ground baiting and trapping, sometimes complemented by aerial baiting and shooting. Trapping is the primary reactive control activity in terms of expenditure and labour force effort. However, in terms of the total nights during a year for which a ground bait or trap is operational, baiting remains the core proactive tool and the major control measure undertaken by the program. The two major reasons that baiting has assumed dominance over trapping is ground baits are quicker to deploy and longer time lapses between checks reduce the need for manual input. As a result of this position, the desired outcomes for wild dog control, determined either by baiting or trapping, should be ultimately clarified as a matter of policy development. Additionally there is a benefit in DEDJTR clarifying the obligations of government in undertaking reasonable wild dog control measures in the context of the current service offer, or interpretation by government of their duty of care and service expectations. The level of control reasonably required by legislation should be clarified as a matter of policy development as should the subsequent service definition of operational responses to landholder reporting. These clarifications should inform the strategic direction of the Wild Dog Control Program. Assess whether the tools, techniques and strategies are being used efficiently and effectively in Victoria to protect livestock and to build the capacity of the private sector to plan, lead and deliver local approaches to wild dog management on private land. Consistent with the Victorian Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs 2014-2019, effectively reducing the impacts of wild dogs requires a strategic, proactive and cost effective approach whereby private and public land managers work together and utilise all available management practices including baiting, trapping, shooting, exclusion fencing and good on-farm husbandry practices. Our evaluation has primarily focused on lethal measures, such as baiting and trapping, as it has not been possible to examine the uptake and effectiveness of non-lethal measures and other lethal measures such as shooting due to a lack of data. There has been a substantial increase in baiting as a control activity due to a shift in program focus over the last three years from reactive public service provision toward more proactive public service provision and improved community engagement.
Land Act 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 Yes, post field Reposition and developing new KPI framework – ha of area under No, for parks and wildlife Varies by DSG because of various funding No, State collation may be some local measurement
plan and reduction in report incident requirements. RBG produce range of output measures. 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 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 Predator control days run by industry. Extension and provided by Biosecurity
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 No depends on individual group No
e.g. some may require only advice. 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 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 Only values losses - $6 million impact Not known
The options presented in this section, while not reflecting all possible options, provide a broad overview of potential changes that could be made. Additionally, the options have been developed assuming that for a Wild dog controller there is: at least one day per week allocated to setting traps; at least one day per week allocated to baiting; and one day per week allocated to ‘other’ activities which are not directly related to trapping or baiting (e.g. community consultation, other types of control measures). Additionally, we have assumed that 2 per cent of baits laid results in a wild dog being killed. Options for change under current 72 hour trap inspections There are a range of options that could be undertaken to improve the amount of wild dogs killed. These include increasing the amount of days allocated to baiting and expanding work days to include weekend work, noting that weekend work will increase costs. With this in mind, we have defined potential future options for wild dog management as: Base case: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting. This assumes that one day is allocated to non-field related activities and that there is no weekend work. The base case broadly reflects current operations across Victoria. Option 1A: One day of trapping substituted for baiting. This assumes the same as the base case but with one day of trapping substituted with baiting. Option 1B: Weekend trapping and allocate freed up day to rostered day off. This assumes that trapping occurs every three days and may occur each week on either a Saturday and/or Sunday. This option assumes a weekend day allocated to trapping incurs an additional cost (assuming a 50% loading to normal staff pay rates for Saturdays and 100% for Sundays). These options are further illustrated in Table 9. Table : Options for change under 72 hour trap inspections The impact of these options compared to the base case is illustrated in Table 10, Figure 24 and Figure 25. These show that there are a range of options to achieve a higher level of dogs killed in order to achieve lower livestock deaths, although some options are costlier than others. Option 1A shows the impact of increasing baiting at the expense of trapping while Option 1B shows the impact of weekend trapping. Table : Summary of impacts for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections Source: Marsden Jacob estimates Note: the cost impact refers to the total annual cost impact across all wild dog controllers.