You are here: Agriculture » Pests, Diseases and Weeds » Pest Animals » Wild Dogs » Other Information on Wild Dogs » Social Benefit Cost Analysis

Social Benefit Cost Analysis

Wild Dog Management in Victoria

Scope and Approach

1. Summary and conclusions

a. Definition of “wild dog”
b. Direct economic impacts
c. Social and health impacts
d. Environmental impacts
e. Contingent liabilities
f. Effectiveness of wild dog management

2. Calculating the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs

a. Intensity of wild dog impact
b. Size of area affected
c. Stocking rate
d. Cost of wild dog impact
e. Assumption and data

3. “Opportunity cost” of wild dogs

a. Victoria – state “opportunity cost”
b. “Opportunity cost” Sensitivity Analysis
c. Regional Impacts

i. North East Victoria
ii. Goulburn Region
iii. Gippsland
iv. North West Victoria (Big Desert)
v. Peri-urban Interface

4. Impact of wild dog management

5. Social impacts

a. Health and safety issues

i. Psychological impact
ii. Public health risks
iii. Attacks on humans
iv. Impacts on local communities

b. Animal welfare concerns

6. Environmental impacts

a. Impact on fauna

i. Apex predator
ii. Feral animal

b. Flora and geophysical impacts
c. Summary

Contents ctd

Appendix I: Scope of Study
Appendix II: Data tables
Appendix III: Bibliography

Tables

Table 1: “Opportunity cost” of wild dogs in Victoria
Table 2: Sensitivity analysis - “opportunity cost” of wild dogs in Victoria
Table 3: Livestock production values used in analysis
Table 4: Carrying capacity and labour values used in analysis
Table 5: Example of method used to calculate “Opportunity cost” - North East
Table 6: Opportunity cost of wild dogs - Victoria
Table 7: Sensitivity analysis
Table 8: Values used for various classes of sheep
Table 9: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – North East Victoria
Table 10: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – Goulburn Region
Table 11: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – Gippsland
Table 12: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – North West Victoria
Table 13: Footprint and other sign indices [1]

Figures & Maps

Figure 1: Schematic – Wild dog intensity mapping
Map 1: North Eastern Victoria
Map 2: Goulburn Region
Map 3: Central Gippsland
Map 4: East Gippsland
Map 5: North West Victoria

Scope and Approach

The purpose of this study is to document the benefits and costs of wild dog management in Victoria. The identified benefits and costs are then used to prepare a Social Benefit/Cost Analysis (SBCA).

This information will be used to help the Victorian Government frame a wild dog management programme that delivers a cost effective solution to addressing the problems caused by wild dogs in rural areas.

It is noted that, as specified in the Scope of the Work (Appendix I), the study is not required to simulate the impact of changes in the type and extent of expenditures on wild dog management. It is however expected that the data and analysis from this study may be used in preparing a comparative static analysis of alternative strategies for wild dog management.

This study uses a standard approach to benefit/cost analysis; “with” and “without” scenario are defined and differentiated. Where possible the benefits and costs are quantified. Where quantification is either not possible or irrelevant the issues are discussed. The “with” scenario represents the situation that currently prevails “with” wild dog activity; the “without” scenario represents the situation that would prevail if there was neither wild dog activity nor any prospect of such activity. In this study the difference between the “with” and “without” scenario is measured by determining the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs.

Data for the analysis was collected through a series on in-depth interviews with farmers and other sources. Published and other secondary sources were also used.

The study was carried out by Tyne Group.

Author	Chris Lightfoot
Peer reviewer	Neil Sturgess
Office support	Uuganbileg Erdene & Nyamka Bayanmunkh

Tyne Group wishes to acknowledge the generosity of all those farmers, public officials and private citizens who contributed time and information in support of this study. While this support was invaluable, the results of the analysis and the conclusions drawn there from are the responsibility of the author.

1. Summary and conclusions

a. Definition of “wild dog”

In this report the term wild dog is used to describe feral or wild populations of Canids including feral dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), Dingo-dog hybrids (Canis lupus dingo x Canis lupus familiaris) and Dingos (Canis lupus dingo). It is noted that Dingos are a threatened species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and as a result are protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act 1975. Other feral or wild populations of dogs and dingo-dog hybrids are however declared Established Pest Animals under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

Since the arrival of Europeans interbreeding between dogs and Dingos has resulted in a high level of hybridisation in some wild Canid populations.

While the legal status of the Dingo is markedly different to that of other wild dogs there is no way of differentiating between the impact of Dingos, feral dogs and Dingo-dog hybrids on the economy or environment. For practical purposes then, the term wild dogs, when used within this report, will encompass the three types of Canid.

b. Direct economic impacts

Wild dogs are reducing the productivity of livestock production in Victoria. The study calculates the “opportunity cost” of the impact that wild dogs are having on the State’s economy.

The method use in this study to calculate the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs involved:

estimating the intensity of wild dog impact
estimating the size of the area affected
identify the stocking rate of that area
calculating the cost of wild dog impact on a gross margin per Dry Sheep Equivalent [1] (DSE) basis

The intensity of wild dog impact was categorised using two indicators; a) topography of the affected land - where the slope of the affected land was 18o or greater the impact was categorised as “Severe” and, b) the lamb marking percentage – where the lamb marking rate on the affected area was 40% or less of joined ewes the intensity was categorised as “High”. Lamb marking rates exceeding 40% were categorised as either “Medium” or “Low”. The affected land was identified by farmers, wild dog controllers and other interviewees.

Table 1: “Opportunity cost” of wild dogs in Victoria

	Aggregate
Area affected (ha)	470,400
Estimated carrying capacity (DSE/ha)	10.1
Effective stocking rate (DSE/ha)*	4.8
Average loss ($/DSE)	$4.03
Opportunity cost of labour ($ pa)	$4,046,515
Total opportunity cost ($ pa)	$13,217,572

* Derived from ABS 2006 Agricultural Census

It is estimated that over 470,000 hectares of private land are impacted by wild dogs. The “opportunity cost” of this impact to livestock production in Victoria exceeds $13.2 million per annum. This “opportunity cost” includes over $4.0 million per annum in time and labour incurred by farmers and their employees, Table 1. In addition the State is spending around $4.4 million on wild dog management. It is noted that, while recognising that the impact of wild dogs is substantial, it represents a relatively small proportion of overall agricultural production which exceeded $8.7 billion in 2006-07, (ABS, 2010).

This “opportunity cost” is a dead weight loss to the Victorian economy. It represents a loss in productivity that is not offset by any countervailing increase in value elsewhere in the State’s economy.

Table 2: Sensitivity analysis - “opportunity cost” of wild dogs in Victoria

	"Opportunity cost" ($ per annum)	Wild dog management break even^f
Base model	$13,217,572	35.5%
Current sheep prices	$18,435,794	28.5%
Increased ewe mortality (20%)	$15,128,616	33.4%
Reduced beef damage (10%)	$11,075,533	39.8%
Change in Intensity
"High" increase (25%)	$15,220,198	35.5%
"High" reduce (25%)	$11,214,946	35.5%
Current prices + Increase in Intensity	$21,237,889	28.1%

The “Base model” used in this analysis assumes long run prices, which are typically around half that of current prices. The sensitivity analysis shown in Table 2 indicates that, at the prices currently being paid for sheep, the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs to livestock production exceeds $18.0 million per annum. While it is unrealistic to suggest that farmers could instantly adjust their production levels to fully capture the current price levels it is equally true that the loss of the opportunity to capitalise on these unusually high prices is a major disappointment for many.

While the $4.4 million per annum Victoria is currently spending on wild dog management is undoubtedly reducing the impact of wild dogs on the State’s economy determining the effectiveness of this expenditure is problematic. Wild dog management has been carried out in Victoria since the earliest days of settlement so there is no feasible way of differentiating between the “with” and “without” wild dog management scenarios. It is however possible to calculate the level of effectiveness that would be required to reduce the “opportunity cost” by an amount sufficient to offset the expenditure on wild dog management. The second column in Table 2 shows the level of effectiveness that would need to be achieved for the benefits to equal the cost in the various scenarios.

c. Social and health impacts

In addition to the direct economic costs wild dogs in certain areas are carriers of hydatid tapeworms (Echinococcus granulosus) and the protozoan parasite Neospora caninum, both of which can cause disease in livestock. Hydatid disease (echinococcosis) is also a zoonotic disease that can be transmitted to humans. Echinococcosis is difficult to treat and in rare occasions may prove fatal. Also the psychological impact on farmers who are forced to cope with the depredation of wild dogs on their livestock is not trivial. While these social and health impacts are real this study was unable to quantify them so the report is limited to narrative descriptions.

d. Environmental impacts

The environmental impact of wild dogs in Victoria is disputed. The dispute can be generalised into two premises. One argument can be characterised as asserting that wild dogs are feral animals and therefore any impact that they have is unnatural. The other holds that while wild dogs may be feral animals, they perform a natural function in Victorian forests, co-existent with or replacing the dingo, as an “apex predator”. Ultimately the distinction between these arguments is philosophical rather than empirical. The “apex predator” argument is based on the function of the predator in the environment while the “feral animal” argument is based on the nature of the predator. These different views cannot be resolved with currently available empirical data. With further research, trophic relationships associated with wild dogs and their native and exotic prey may be clarified, but until that occurs the best that can be done is to consider the implication of both views.

If wild dogs are viewed as intrinsically “unnatural” then any impact that they have on native animals, including endangered animals, may simply be viewed as negative impacts. On the positive side wild dogs prey upon other feral animals. The problem with both these paradigms is that calculating benefits and costs is very difficult. It is important to note however that research has shown that the Victorian community would be willing to spend considerable amounts to mitigate their impact on native fauna. By way of example a contingent valuation indicated that the Victorian community would be willing to spend between $40 million and $84 million per year to prevent the Leadbeater’s possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) becoming extinct – the corollary of this result is that the damage caused by wild dogs to endangered species such as the critically endangered brush tail wallaby could be “costing” millions.

e. Contingent liabilities

One issue that became abundantly clear during the field work for this study was that farmers and land-owners are frustrated by the changes in regulations and control techniques that they are permitted to use. It doesn’t take too much imagination to conclude that if the State’s efforts to control wild dogs are seen as insufficient or ineffective farmers and land-owners could become far more aggressive in the measures they are willing to use. The likely consequence would be an increase in the cost of enforcement of regulations – if the State is not seen as doing sufficient the Government could quickly find itself having to fund substantially increased enforcement efforts.

As evidenced by Stockwell case, the law requires land-owners to take reasonable measures to control pest animals. It seems that the measures do not have to be totally effective but they do need to be reasonable given the resources available. The judgement in that case found against the State and for the plaintiff, this suggests that the State has a duty to control wild dogs which if ignored could be extremely costly. It’s noted that a substantial proportion of the court ordered payment was in compensation for the reduction in value of the plaintiff’s property due to the impact of wild dogs.

f. Effectiveness of wild dog management

Currently wild dog management is costing the State of Victoria around $4.4m. For the benefits derived from that expenditure to exceed the costs it would be necessary for the State’s wild dog management efforts to be reducing the impact of wild dogs by at least an equivalent amount. Analysis in this study shows that if the benefits achieved are equivalent to a reduction in the impact of wild dogs on livestock production by 35.5% then the benefits from the State’s expenditure on wild dog management would cover the costs.

Despite many of the uncertainties that surround the valuation of the benefits and costs of wild dogs it is clear that the actual and potential costs are substantial. The extent to which wild dog management is mitigating those costs cannot be fully quantified but those costs and risks that can be identified suggest that the benefits are exceeding the costs. It should also be noted that the farmers and other people interviewed during this study were adamant that the State’s wild dog management activities are valuable and essential – albeit few thought that those efforts were totally effective.

2. Calculating the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs

Dingos were present in the high country of eastern Victoria and in the Big Desert in western Victoria well before European settlement. The Dingo is a subspecies of the Wolf and is thought to have arrived in Australia about 5,000 years ago. They subsequently spread throughout the mainland.

The introduction of livestock farming by Europeans provided wild dogs with a new source of food. Evidence of this can be found in reports from the mid 1800s. One report states that graziers employed hutkeepers to keep watch over their flocks: “The hutkeeper slept in a watchbox placed at a vantage point between the hurdles yarding sheep. He kept watch over the flock, sleeping with rifle by his side to prevent depredation by natives or dingoes [sic]. A bounty of 5 shillings was paid on dead dingoes.” (McRae -1976 p63)

There are many farmers who would say that the only thing that has changed over the past 170 years is that they can no longer afford to employ shepherds to sit out and guard their flocks. Certainly wild dogs continue to prey upon livestock and farmers continue to sit out at night armed with rifles intent on protecting their flocks from attacks by wild dogs.

Therefore the most obvious and generally recognised private costs of wild dogs are their impact on livestock enterprises. These include direct losses and damage to livestock, the reduction in value of livestock production (e.g. tender wool, disease etc), costs of materials used in wild dog control and, most importantly, the time spent on wild dog control by livestock owners and managers.

The capacity of wild dogs to impact on livestock was clearly demonstrated when “Fewer than 20 dingoes eradicated an estimated 3,000 feral goats (Capra hircus) within three years after being released on to a 70km² offshore tropical island [Townshend Island] (Allen et al 1998)”.

Other private benefits/costs that have been suggested include the reduction of pest damage to plantations and crops, attacks on pet animals and disruption of land use respectively. It is not clear to what extent these benefits/costs are significant so they are not included in this analysis.

While there are several approaches that could be used to calculate the impact of wild dogs on livestock the most appropriate is to estimate their impact on productivity. The reduction in productivity is a net cost to the farmer, the district, the region and the state and as such is the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs.

In this analysis the “opportunity cost” is the difference between the productivity that would have occurred “without” wild dogs and that which occurs “with” wild dogs at the current level of wild dog management.

The method used in this study to calculate the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs involved:

estimating the intensity of wild dog impact
estimating the size of the area affected
identify the stocking rate of that area
calculating the cost of wild dog impact on a gross margin per DSE basis

a. Intensity of wild dog impact

There is considerable variation in the level and frequency of impact within the affected areas. While some areas suffer persistent and serious damage in other areas the impacts are spasmodic – albeit the impact of those occasional episodes can be severe. Anecdotal information suggests that the intensity of wild dog impact has been increasing over recent years. This view is widely held and while it is not necessarily supported by the existing empirical data nor is the data sufficient to rebut the view.

In this analysis the intensity of impact is estimated for all agricultural land in the affected areas (and by imputation – the entire state). The data used to prepare this estimate was derived from Departmental records of wild dog captures combined with information provided by wild dog controllers.

The frequency of wild dog captures in a particular area loosely mirrors the severity of the problem in that locality. If viewed in isolation however, wild dog capture records may be misleading. The recorded capture data reflects the results of trapping and other control measures rather than the impact on livestock. This potential discrepancy in the information was resolved through discussions with wild dog controllers who identified the localities where the impact of wild dogs is most severe.

The intensity of wild dog impact is categorised using two indicators. The first indicator is the slope of the land and second is the lamb marking rate.

The analysis uses five categories of wild dog impact:

Severe	(land slope exceeding 18^O)
High	(lamb marking percentage less than 40%)
Medium	(lamb marking percentage between 40% and 60%)
Low	(lamb marking percentage between 60% than 75%)
Nil	(lamb marking percentage greater than 75%)

The slope of the land is the primary determinant used to differentiate “Severe” impact from lesser degrees of intensity. Research has shown that while steep slopes can be used for low intensity sheep grazing they are unsuitable for cattle (Vallentine, 2001). When the impact of wild dogs makes the sheep grazing impractical these steep slopes are taken out of production and often become overgrown with weeds.

The lamb marking rate is used as the second determinant to differentiate between the other degrees of intensity. The lamb marking rate is used because it is commonly recorded by farmers and is readily obtainable. In addition the lamb marking rate closely correlates to the severity of wild dog impact. Other predators, in particular foxes, are common throughout Victoria and their impact on lamb marking rates in all areas, including those without wild dogs, is reflected in the data collected by the Farm Monitor Project. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the difference in lamb marking rates between areas “with” wild dogs and those “without” wild dogs is principally due to the impact of wild dogs. The Department of Primary Industries Farm Monitor Project shows the long run average lamb marking rate for wool sheep to be 75% of ewes joined.

Some of the affected areas are protected by wild dog exclusion fences. When properly constructed and well maintained these fences can substantially reduce the impact of wild dogs. In this analysis the areas immediately adjoining wild dog exclusion fences have been categorised as “Low” intensity. It is noted that the discontinuous fences can exacerbate the impact of wild dogs in the vicinity of the end of the fences. While wild dogs will not generally jump fences they will follow along a fence until they find a break. This can concentrate their impact around the end of exclusion fences. Experience in the North West is evidence of this – the most seriously impacted areas are where vehicle tracks pass through the exclusion fence. Typically wild dog controllers concentrate their efforts in areas that wild dogs frequent; as such gaps in wild dog exclusion fence provide a natural target locality.

b. Size of area affected

The impact of wild dogs varies considerably throughout Victoria. The principal impact is in the North East, Gippsland and parts of the North West. Within these three areas the impact tends to be localised with most of the wild dog impact being concentrated on private land that adjoins public forests.

The areas impacted by wild dogs are well defined in the Department of Primary Industries GIS database. The areas included in this analysis are:

North East
This area extends from the Ovens Valley to the border with New South Wales and across to Corryong in the east – see Map 1: North Eastern Victoria, page 18.

Goulburn
This area extends from Whitfield in the north to Yea in the south – see Map 2: Goulburn Region, page 20.

Gippsland
This area extends from Drouin in the west to the New South Wales border past Cann River and encompasses the Omeo/Benambra/Swifts Creek area – see Map 3: Central Gippsland & Map 4: East Gippsland, page 22

North West
This area encompasses the Big Desert in Western Victoria – see Map 5: North West Victoria, page 24

Peri-urban
This extends across the southern boundary of the Dandenong Ranges from Whittlesea in the west to Drouin in the east – see Map 2: Goulburn Region, page 20

The actual impact varies throughout each of the areas. As a general rule it depends upon the proximity of agricultural land to public forest - the closer agricultural land is to public forest the more likely it will be affected by wild dogs.

The size of the areas affected was calculated using the wild dog capture data recorded on the Department of Primary Industries GIS database and information provided by wild dog controllers.

The estimation of the size of the area affected assumes that each intensity range has a width of 1.0km. This assumption is based on information provided by farmers and wild dog controllers. For example where the intensity at the boundary between private land and public land has been identified as “Low” the range of the impact is assumed to extend 1.0km into the private land from the boundary. Where the intensity at the boundary has been identified as “High” the range is assumed to extend 3.0km into private land with the 1st 1.0km being “High” intensity, the 2^nd 1.0km being “Medium” intensity and the 3rd 1.0km being “Low” intensity. This relationship is represented in the schematic shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Schematic – Wild dog intensity mapping

The intensity ranges were manually plotted as lines along the boundary between public and private land. GIS software is then used converted the length of these lines into 1.0km wide bands and removed any overlaps between the bands and with public land. This process enabled discrete areas of “High”, “Medium” and “Low” intensity to be quantified.

It is noted that when the intensity grades from “High” to “Medium” and then “Low” the size of the “Medium” and “Low” intensity ranges are generally smaller than the area of “High” intensity. This outcome reflects the overlapping of intensity ranges in valleys and into public land.

c. Stocking rate

Data on stocking rates was obtained from Department of Primary Industries staff, former Departmental staff, farmers, Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data and other published secondary sources. The stocking rates depend upon a combination of factors including rainfall, soil type, topography and fertility. While it is recognized that the level of fertility can vary significantly depending upon past farming practices and the extent to which land owners apply fertilizer, the other factors are largely independent of farm practices. For the purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that the stocking rates can be generalized according to topography and rainfall and assuming fair average quality farm management.

The impact per DSE also depends upon the type of livestock being affected. The impact on sheep is substantially greater than the impact on cattle. Lambs and mature sheep are far more vulnerable to wild dog attack than cattle. In addition wool production and carcase quality can both be seriously affected. Nonetheless wild dogs do attack cattle, kill calves and stress mature cattle; they also carry neosporosis which is a major cause of bovine abortion in Australia (Landman et al, 2005).

The relative stocking intensity of sheep and cattle varies between the regions. In addition it is not uncommon for farmers to run a mix of cattle and sheep. Using DSE as the basis for analysis avoids the need to prepare detailed stock schedules however it remains necessary to differentiate the relative stocking intensity. The information used to determine the relative stocking rate intensity was the ABS Agricultural Census – 2006. The Census provides regional and sub-regional statistics on the area of agricultural land, number of sheep by type and numbers of beef cattle by type throughout the affected regions. The numbers of each type of livestock were divided by the relevant area of agricultural land to determine the relative stocking rate for each type of livestock. These figures were used to adjust the calculated impact to reflect the stocking intensity of sheep and cattle, see Table 3. The stocking rates used are shown in Table 4.

d. Cost of wild dog impact

The data used to calculate the cost of wild dog impact is based on a merino ewe flock, Appendix table 1. While it is recognised that some farmers in the affected areas run cross-bred flocks and some produce fat lambs the gross margins per DSE are generally similar so this simplifying assumption does not unduly distort the results of the analysis.

Two sources of information were used to estimate the lamb marking rates and gross margins per DSE. Data used in the “without” scenario was obtained from the Farm Monitor Project reports. All but a few of the respondents to the surveys used to compile the Farm Monitor Project reports are in areas not affected by wild dogs but in virtually all other respects they are similar to farmers in the affected areas.

The equivalent data for the “with” scenario was obtained through 30 in-depth on-farm interviews plus secondary data sources. The data obtained included:

Lamb marking rates
Stock losses and damage
Direct costs of wild dog control, including baits, fence maintenance and other out-goings
Time spent on wild dog control, including cost of employing labour

Where the intensity of impact is “Severe” production ceases which means that the “opportunity cost” is equal to the gross margin that would otherwise have been earned from grazing sheep on the land. In this case the “opportunity cost” per hectare equals the DSE per hectare multiplied by the gross margin per DSE “without” wild dogs.

Where the intensity of impact is “High”, “Medium” or “Low” the loss of production is proportionate to the reduction in lamb marking rate and the amount of time spent on wild dog control. In these cases the “opportunity cost” is calculated from data collected from farmers and other sources. The calculations used DSE figures for each region (see Maps 1 to 5) and each intensity category.

The sheep losses are based on the lamb marking rate for each category. The calculated lamb losses are the difference between the lamb marking rate experienced “with” wild dogs in the affected area and the average lamb marking rate achieved elsewhere in the state, as reported by the Farm Monitor Project. The numbers of ewes lost to wild dogs are assumed to be 10% of the number of lambs lost. The 10% is based on information collected during interviews, the available data is limited but wild dogs do kill mature sheep, albeit at a lesser rate than lambs. The values for sheep used in the analysis were obtained from the Farm Monitor Project.

Wild dogs also impact on cattle albeit far less severely than on sheep. Attacks on cattle are being reported but the extent of the impact is not yet clear. Wild dogs do kill calves and have been reported attacking mature cattle. Wild dogs also stress cattle thereby making them difficult to handle. As mentioned previously, wild dogs are carriers of Neospora caninum which causes bovine abortion, where wild dogs are present there are likely to be unrecognised cases of abortion caused by Neospora caninum. In this analysis the cattle losses are calculated to be equivalent to 25% of the impact that wild dogs would have on sheep in the same situation. For example, if the impact on sheep in a particular locality was estimated to be $10.00/DSE the equivalent impact on cattle is calculated as $2.50/DSE. The 25% figure used in this analysis was obtained from farmers; while it is not supported by concrete data it seems to be a reasonable estimate.

An important but seldom documented cost of wild dogs is the time spent by farmers on wild dog control. These control activities include regular maintenance of fences, trapping and poisoning, frequent inspection of stock, moving stock into protected areas every evening and when wild dogs are active it is common for farmers to spend a considerable amount of time trying to destroy them. The time spent on wild dog control activities is time lost from other farm management activities. The “opportunity cost” of this time can be estimated as either the:

reduction in labour productivity – in this case a reduction in the number of DSE managed per labour unit or,
direct cost of time spent on wild dog control activities.

The Farm Monitor Project reports that in Victoria the average DSE/labour unit is around 7,700. The “opportunity cost” of time spent on wild dog control is the difference between the gross margin for the potential DSE/ labour unit and the actual DSE/labour unit. For example if a farmer spent 10% of the available time on wild dog control which in turn reduced the management capacity by 770 DSE the “opportunity cost” would be 770 times the expected gross margin per DSE.

The 7,700 DSE per labour unit reported by the Farm Monitor Project is equivalent to a flock of 3,740 merino ewes or a herd of 500 breeding cows (McLaren 1997). In practice these flock and herd sizes are greater than the average farm size in the affected areas. This suggests that many farmers are spending time on other activities and/or are operating at less than full efficiency. If they are operating at less than full efficiency the “opportunity cost” of their time would be less than the apparent cost.

An alternative method to measure the “opportunity cost” of time spent on wild dog management is to directly cost that time using a rate which reflects the value of labour. For example the number of hours spent could be valued at $25/hour – roughly the equivalent of $50,000 per annum for a full time worker. While this approach is a little easier to calculate than the foregone productivity approach it suffers from the same problem – how to measure the extent to which the farmer is fully efficient. The farmer’s time can only be valued at $25/hr if the next best use of time is worth at least $25/hr. If the next best use of time is worth less than $25/hr then the time spent on wild dog control should be costed no more than that lower rate.

Using either approach presents real difficulties. In practice some farmers are more capable than others and there are a wide range of on-farm and off-farm activities in which farmers are engaged. It is not unusual for farmers to work off-farm as contractors or in other employment. The time spent on one task reduces the time available to be spent on another. The “opportunity cost” is the value of the activity or task that is foregone. For example a farmer working as a contractor may not have time to adequately manage the livestock, if as a result of this insufficient time the value of the livestock production is reduced the size of that reduction in value is the “opportunity cost”.

In this analysis the approach used is to cost the time spent on wild dog control activities at the equivalent of $50,000 per annum. The rationale being that there is a wide range of farm efficiency throughout the affected areas and it is not unusual for farmers to earn off-farm income. While the “opportunity cost” for some is likely to be less than the equivalent of $50,000 per annum per labour unit there are others who can earn considerably more. In addition, even a moderate reduction in labour productivity, can substantially reduce the gross margin of livestock enterprises.

e. Assumption and data

The assumptions and data used to calculate the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Livestock production values used in analysis

Item	Value	Source
Stock values
Lamb ($/hd)	$55	Farm Monitor Project
Ewe ($/hd)	$62	Farm Monitor Project
Wether ($/hd)	$53	Farm Monitor Project
Beef losses (Beef/Sheep ratio)	25%	Assumption, Farmer interviews
Wool values
Wool price ($/kg)	$6.50	Farm Monitor Project
Wool yield (kg/hd)	4.50	Farm Monitor Project
Tender wool discount	25%	Assumption
Production values
"Without" lamb marking rate	75%	Farm Monitor Project
Average DSE/ewe (Merino flock)	2.06	Ag Note AG0590
Ewe kills (% lamb marking rate)	10%	Assumption, Farmer interviews
Stocking intensity (dse/ha)
North East 7.40 ABS Agricultural Census - 2006
Goulburn 17.38 ABS Agricultural Census - 2006
Gippsland 4.97 ABS Agricultural Census - 2006
North West 1.60 ABS Agricultural Census - 2006
Labour productivity (dse/labour unit) 7,659 Farm Management Project
Labour cost ($/annum) $50,000 Assumption

Table 4: Carrying capacity and labour values used in analysis

Stocking rates (dse/ha)
	Steep (=>18o)	Hilly	Undulating	Flat
North East	4	8	10	12
Goulburn	4	8	10	14
Gippsland	4	8	10	12
North West	n.a.	4	4	4
Labour (days/yr)		75	30	5

Table 5: Example of method used to calculate “Opportunity cost” - North East

STOCK NUMBERS		V/steep (=>18o)	Foothills	Undulating	Flat (e.g river flats)
			Topography
Stocking rate (dse/ha) (assumes FAQ management + topography and rainfall)		4	8	10	12
Merino flock (ewe/ha) (dse/merino ewe (2.06) x stocking rate)		3.2	3.9	4.9	5.8
Livestock Intensity
Intensity Sheep (dse/ha) (ABS Agricultural Census - 2006)			0.93	0.93	0.93
Beef intensity (dse/ha) (ABS Agricultural Census - 2006)			3.50	3.50	3.50
Sheep impacted (dse) ("Sheep intensity" x "Area affected")		28,800	32,074	65,565	63,454
Beef impacted (dse) ("Beef intensity" x "Area affected")			120,913	247,165	239,208
			Wild dog "intensity"
STOCK LOSSES		Severe	High	Medium	Low
Lamb marking rate (lambs marked/ewe joined) (second indicator of impact)			=<40%	=<60%	=<75%
Lambs lost (No./ewe joined) ("without" rate (80%) - "with" marking rate x merino ewe/ha)			1.6	1.0	0.3
Value of lambs lost ($/ha) ("Lambs lost" x lamb value)			$85.44	$53.40	$16.02
Value of ewes lost ($/ha) ("Lambs lost" x 10% x ewe value)			$9.63	$6.02	$1.81
Value of sheep losses ($/ha) ("Value of lambs lost" + "Value of ewes lost")			$95.07	$59.42	$17.83
Value of sheep losses ($/dse) ("Value of sheep losses" / "Stocking rate")		$24.00	$11.88	$5.94	$1.49
Wool damage
Value of wool "without" wild dogs ($/ha) ($6.50 x 4.50kg x ewe/ha)			$113.59	$141.99	$170.39
Reduction in value "with" wild dogs ($/ha) (0.75 x value "without" wild dogs)			$28.40	$23.67	$22.72
Loss per dse ($/dse) (reduction in value / dse/ha)			$3.55	$2.37	$1.89
Sheep losses ($/dse) (sum of "Stock losses" and "Wool damage")		$24.00	$15.43	$8.31	$3.38
Beef Losses ($/dse) (assumed 25% of equivalent in "Sheep losses")		$6.00	$3.86	$2.08	$0.84
Area Affected (ha)	179,950	9,000	29,750	64,400	76,800
Livestock Losses ($/dse) (Weighted average -"Sheep impacted" and "Beef impacted")	$2.84	$24.00	$6.29	$3.38	$1.38
"Opportunity cost" of livestock losses ($) (("Sheep impacted" + "Beef impacted") x	$3,127,271	$691,200	$961,528	$1,058,106	$416,437
			Wild dog "intensity"
LABOUR		Severe	High	Medium	Low
Area per Labour Unit (ha/LU) (average area managed per labour unit)			450	450	450
Time spent on wild dog control (days/annum)			75	30	10
Labour unit effectiveness "without" wild dogs (ha/LU) ("Area affected" / "Area per labour unit")			66.1	143.1	170.7
Labour unit effectiveness "with" wild dogs (ha/LU) ("Labour "without" x (1 + ("Time spent"/ 300)))			82.6	157.4	176.4
Net additional labour units (ha/LU) ("Labour "with" - "Labour "without")			16.5	14.3	5.7
"Opportunity cost" of labour ($) ("Additional labour units x $50,000 per annum)	$1,826,389		$826,389	$715,556	$284,444
Total "Opportunity cost" of wild dogs ($) ("Opportunity cost of livestock" + "Opportunity cost of labour")	$4,953,660	$691,200	$1,787,917	$1,773,662	$700,881

3. “Opportunity cost” of wild dogs

The following analysis aggregates the impact across large areas of private land. As such the direct impacts on individual livestock enterprises are masked. In fact in most areas the impacts vary considerably between individual farms. Amongst other things this variation can be due to the particular environment, the condition of fences, types of livestock and management practices.

a. Victoria – state “opportunity cost”

The estimated “Total opportunity cost” of wild dogs on Victoria’s economy is over $13.2 million per annum, Table 6. While this is a substantial amount, it is relatively small proportion of the total value of Victorian agriculture which amounted to over $8.7 billion in 2006-07 (ABS, 2010). During the same period livestock production amounted to over $4.7 billion.

Analysis of the Department of Primary Industries records of wild dog captures combined with information provided by Wild Dog Controllers indicates that over 470,000 hectares of agricultural land are impacted by wild dog activity. The intensity of this impact varies but on nearly 82,000 hectares of that total area the impact is sufficient to make sheep farming virtually impossible. On another 160,850 hectares where the lambing rates are less than 60% sheep farming borders on uneconomic.

On nearly 230,000 hectares the impact is spasmodic and, on average, relatively low. This should however not be read as suggesting that these “low” impacts are trivial. Even thought spasmodic the episodes can be very severe when they occur. In some cases, particularly where the viability of a farm is already marginal, the impact of wild dogs will be sufficient to force the farmer off the land.

Table 6: Opportunity cost of wild dogs - Victoria

	Aggregate
Area affected (ha)	470,400
Estimated carrying capacity (DSE/ha)	10.1
Effective stocking rate (DSE/ha)*	4.8
Average loss ($/DSE)	$4.03
Opportunity cost of labour ($ pa)	$4,046,515
Total opportunity cost ($ pa)	$13,217,572

*Derived from ABS 2006 Agricultural Census

The “Total opportunity cost” shown in Table 6 and following tables is a deadweight cost to the productivity of Victoria - it is not offset by gains elsewhere in the Victorian economy.

b. “Opportunity cost” Sensitivity Analysis

While considerable effort was made to collect accurate and reliable data in several cases the required information was unclear or not available. To help redress this uncertainty a Sensitivity Analysis [2] was carried out by changing the values of several variables. The significance in these variables is shown in Table 7 and explained in the following “Notes to “Sensitivity analysis”.

Table 7: Sensitivity analysis

	"Opportunity cost" ($ per annum)	Wild dog management break even^f
Base model	$13,217,572	35.5%
Current sheep prices	$18,435,794	28.5%
Increased ewe mortality (20%)	$15,128,616	33.4%
Reduced beef damage (10%)	$11,075,533	39.8%
Change in Intensity
"High" increase (25%)	$15,220,198	35.5%
"High" reduce (25%)	$11,214,946	35.5%
Current prices + Increase in Intensity	$21,237,889	28.1%

Notes to “Sensitivity analysis”

a) Current sheep prices - the “Base Model” uses the long run values for Merino sheep reported by the Sheep Farm Monitor Project. While these values are a reasonable indication of long run prices they are considerably lower than prices prevailing at the time of writing this report. The values used in the “Base Model” and the “Sensitivity Analysis” are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Values used for various classes of sheep

Base Model		Current Prices
($/hd)		($/hd)
Ewes	$62	Ewes	$120
Weaners	$55	Lambs	$110
Wethers	$53	Wethers	$100

Sources: Sheep Farm Monitor Project (various years) DPI; Market reports

b) Increased ewe mortality – the “Base Model” assumes that the mortality rate for ewes is 10% of the mortality rate for lambs. In the “Sensitivity Analysis” it is assumed that the mortality rate for ewes is 20% of the lamb mortality rate.

c) Reduced cattle damage - there remains considerable uncertainty about the extent to which cattle are being impacted by wild dogs. While there is no doubt that wild dogs are attacking cattle and killing calves the extent of this damage has yet to be identified. In the “Base Model” it is assumed that the damage to cattle is equivalent to 25% of the damage to sheep in the same situation. The “Sensitivity Analysis” tests the impact of a lower, 10% damage rate.

d) Change in intensity – The “Base Model” uses estimates of the wild dog intensity based on Departmental records, advice of wild dog controllers and information obtained from farmers. Aside from the records of wild dog captures the information is anecdotal. The “Sensitivity Analysis” tests the extent to which changes in intensity would affect the “opportunity cost”. It is notable that a 25% change in intensity would change the “opportunity cost” by around 15%. It is also notable that this change would amount to around $2.0m per annum in “opportunity cost”.

e) Current prices and Increase in intensity – It is quite conceivable that more than one of the variable could change. If the common perception that the intensity of wild dog impact is increasing is correct then, when combined with the high current prices, it is obvious why sheep farmers are concerned. At current prices if the intensity of wild dog impact rose by 25% the “opportunity cost” could increase by 60%. In fact if the intensity does escalate to this extent there are many areas where it will no longer be feasible to continue sheep farming.

f) Effectiveness of wild dog management - Currently wild dog management is costing the State of Victoria around $4.4m. For the benefits derived from that expenditure to exceed the costs it would be necessary for the State’s wild dog management efforts to be reducing the impact of wild dogs by at least an equivalent amount. The second column in Table 7 shows the percentage by which wild dog management would need to reduce the impact of wild dogs on livestock for the benefits to equal the costs. For example, in the case of the “Base model” current expenditure on wild dog management would need to be reducing the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs by 35.5% for the benefits realized to equal the costs incurred [3]. As the sensitivity analysis shows, at higher costs the required break even is lower and vice versa for lower costs.

c. Regional Impacts

Map 1: North Eastern Victoria

i. North East Victoria

For the purposes of this analysis North East Victoria extends from the Ovens Valley to east of Corryong and up to the border with New South Wales, Map 1.

The North East includes large areas of forested public land. The agricultural land rises from river flats to very steep slopes. A considerable proportion of the agricultural land is located in narrow valleys that are surrounded by steep slopes and public forest. Many farms have long boundaries with public forest. These boundaries are often on steep slopes which makes it difficult to establish and maintain fences. Given the mix of topography and proximity to public forest it is not surprising that many of these North East valley farms are severely impacted by wild dogs.

The situation in the North East is confused by the relatively high number of small non-farm properties. Many of these are located within or adjacent to forested areas. While wild dogs are undoubtedly having some impact on these properties it is not always obvious to the owners. The occasional loss of pet animals is distressing but not usually considered to be an economic loss. Most of these non-farm residents are probably simply unaware of the more cryptic risks, in particular the risk of echinococcosis.

Table 9: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – North East Victoria

			Wild dog "intensity"
	Aggregate	Severe	High	Medium	Low
Area affected (ha)	179,950	9,000	29,750	64,400	76,800
Average loss ($/DSE)	$3.92	$24.00	$6.29	$3.38	$1.38
Estimated carrying capacity(DSE/ha)	10.2	4	8	10	12
Effective stocking rate (DSE/ha)*	4.4	3.2	5.1	4.9	3.9
Opportunity cost of labour ($ pa)	$1,826,389		$826,389	$715,556	$284,444
Total opportunity cost ($ pa)$	$4,953,660	$691,200	$1,787,917	$1,773,662	$700,881

* Derived from ABS Agriculutural Census - 2006

The long ridge lines that extend deep into the North East provide natural routes for wild dogs. The large area of public forest that extend from east of Tallangatta to the Murray River allows wild dogs to travel from the Alpine areas and establish themselves is close proximity to much of the private land in the North East [4].

This combination of topography, historical agricultural development patterns and distribution of public forest leaves much of the North East very vulnerable to wild dogs.

Nearly 180,000 ha of agricultural land is impacted by wild dogs in the North East. Of that area over 38,000 hectares are no longer viable for sheep farming. This includes around 9,000 hectares of very steep land that is not suitable for any alternative form of livestock production. While it is still possible to farm sheep on the 64,400 hectares that is classified as having a “Medium” intensity of wild dog impact the viability of farming sheep in this area is marginal. It is estimated that the value of time spent by farmers in mitigating the impact of wild dogs exceeds $1.8m per annum, Table 9.

It is estimated that the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs in the North East reduces the productivity of the region by nearly $5.0m.

Map 2: Goulburn Region

ii. Goulburn Region

The Goulburn region extends south west from Whitfield to Yea and encompasses Mansfield, Map 2.

Most of the agricultural land in the Goulburn region is well removed from wild dog impact. Unlike the North East, most settled valleys extend only a short distance into public forest which means the ratio of farm area to boundary with public land is higher than in the North East. This in turn means that livestock production is somewhat less vulnerable to wild dogs than areas that rely more heavily on sheep.

Table 10: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – Goulburn Region

			Wild dog "intensity"
	Aggregate	Severe	High	Medium	Low
Area affected (ha)	52,300	200	5,900	21,000	25,200
Average loss ($/DSE)	$3.69	$24.00	$6.78	$4.22	$2.45
Estimated carrying capacity(DSE/ha)	11.7	4	8	10	14
Effective stocking rate (DSE/ha)*	8.0	3.4	6.3	7.2	9.2
Opportunity cost of labour ($ pa)	$490,556		$163,889	$233,333	$93,333
Total opportunity cost ($ pa)$	$1,966,276	$16,320	$415,477	$872,151	$662,328

* Derived from ABS Agriculutural Census - 2006

Despite being less vulnerable than the North East the areas adjacent to public forests are being impacted by wild dogs.

Over 52,000 ha of agricultural land is impacted by wild dogs in the Goulburn region. Of that area over 6,000 hectares is no longer viable for sheep farming. On an additional 21,000 the viability of farming of sheep is marginal. It is estimated that the value of time spent by farmers in mitigating the impact of wild dogs is nearly $0.5m per annum, Table 10.

It is estimated that the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs in the Goulburn region reduces the productivity of the region by nearly $2.0m per annum.

Map 3: Central Gippsland

Map 4: East Gippsland

iii. Gippsland

The Gippsland area extends from Drouin in the West to the border with New South Wales in the East and North East. It encompasses the Omeo, Benambra, Swifts Creek districts in the centre, Maps 3 and 4.

Most of the agricultural land in Gippsland is located to the south of public forests and not seriously impacted by wild dogs. However, there are substantial areas of agricultural land scattered throughout the public forests, these areas are particularly vulnerable. They have relatively long boundaries to public forest and the topography is often steep. Not surprisingly sheep farming has become impossible in a number of these areas.

Table 11: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – Gippsland

			Wild dog "intensity"
	Aggregate	Severe	High	Medium	Low
Area affected (ha)	209,100	8,500	27,650	62,700	110,250
Average loss ($/DSE)	$4.75	$24.00	$7.51	$4.67	$2.72
Estimated carrying capacity(DSE/ha)	10.5	4	8	10	12
Effective stocking rate (DSE/ha)*	4.4	3.2	5.2	4.9	4.0
Opportunity cost of labour ($ pa)	$1,674,017	$0	$686,439	$622,636	$364,942
Total opportunity cost ($ pa)$	$6,024,218	$652,800	$1,757,214	$2,052,964	$1,561,240

The Omeo/Benambra/Swifts Creek districts include a large area of agricultural land; even so, wild dogs are having a substantial impact in the area. Farms with boundaries bordering on public forest are particularly vulnerable.

Over 209,000 ha of agricultural land is impacted by wild dogs in Gippsland. Of that area over 36,000 hectares is no longer viable for sheep farming. On an additional 62,700 the viability of farming of sheep is marginal. It is estimated that the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs in the Goulburn region reduces the productivity of the region by over $6.0m per annum and that the value of time spent by farmers in mitigating the impact of wild dogs is over $1.7m per annum, Table 11.

Map 5: North West Victoria

iv. North West Victoria (Big Desert)

In the North West of Victoria wild dogs are confined to the Big Desert and its environs, Map 5.

Wild dog management in North West Victoria is carried out by farmer/contractors under the supervision of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The wild dog management efforts are focussed on the Northern and Southern boundaries of the Big Desert.

The boundary between the Big Desert National Park and private land is fenced with an old style netting pest fence. The wild dogs generally track the fence until they find a breach or track, this habit tends to concentrate their impact around breaks in the fence. Typically these breaks are tracks, damage caused by fire or broken sections of the fence. Some of the wild dogs that cross the boundary may travel a significant distance into private land and camp in patches of scrub for short periods but most attacks are relatively close to the boundary between private land and the Big Desert.

The total number of wild dogs in the Big Desert and its environs are not known but it appears that the population density is not high. This may be due to the limited water sources and relatively low food supply in the desert. The Big Desert extends into South Australia and wild dogs move across the border between Victoria and South Australia. It is notable that there are apparently no resident wild dog populations in the Little Desert or the Hattah Lakes parks

Table 12: Opportunity cost of wild dogs – North West Victoria

			Wild dog "intensity"
	Aggregate	Severe	High	Medium	Low
Area affected (ha)	29,050	n/a	800	12,750	15,50
Average loss ($/DSE)	$5.32	n/a	$10.77	$6.70	$3.90
Estimated carrying capacity(DSE/ha)	4	n/a	4	4	4
Effective stocking rate (DSE/ha)*	1.4	n/a	1.4	1.4	1.4
Opportunity cost of labour ($ pa)	$55,553	n/a	$6,410	$40,864	$8,280
Total opportunity cost ($ pa)$	$273,419	n/a	$18,569	$161,325	$93,525

* Derived from ABS Agriculutural Census - 2006

Some locals think that the wild dogs in the Big Desert are primarily dingos with little hybridisation. They also believe that wild dogs in the Big Desert seldom form packs and generally hunt as individuals. The principle exception to this occurs when bitches with weaned pups attack as packs, often damaging but not killing sheep. It is suggested that this activity occurs when bitches are teaching their pups to hunt.

Over 29,000 ha of agricultural land is impacted by wild dogs in the North West. Of that area over 800 hectares is no longer viable for sheep farming. On an additional 12,750 the viability of farming of sheep is marginal. It is estimated that the value of time spent by farmers in mitigating the impact of wild dogs is over $55,000 per annum, Table 12.

It is estimated that the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs in the North West reduces the productivity of the region by nearly $0.3m per annum.

v. Peri-urban Interface

The peri-urban interface extends from Kinglake in the West to Drouin in the East, Map 2.

Wild dogs are also having an impact in the peri-urban areas to the north and east of the Melbourne metropolitan area. Between Drouin in the east and Whittlesea in the west there are 433 km of private/public land interface. Wild dogs can move through the Dandenong Ranges and the Kinglake Park with little impedance. Wild dogs have been reported and captured throughout much of this range.

Wild dog controllers are receiving requests for assistance from residents in these areas who are suffering attacks on pets and reportedly being threatened by wild dogs.

4. Impact of wild dog management

Details of public expenditure on wild dog management were provided by the Department of Primary Industries. The effect of a hypothetical change in public expenditure on wild dog management was discussed in a workshop involving senior wild dog management staff and the consultant.

The outcome of this discussion combined with information gathered from farmers and wild dog controllers made it clear that, while there is no doubt wild dog management is helping mitigate the impact of wild dogs the extent of that mitigation is unknown and apparently unknowable. In these circumstances the best that can be managed is to calculate what level of impact would be required to justify the expenditures.

In the circumstances the most appropriate method to use is a “Sensitivity Analysis” based on the model used to determine the “opportunity cost” of wild dogs.

Currently wild dog management is costing the State of Victoria around $4.4m. This study shows that, for the benefits of that expenditure to equal the costs, the impact of wild dogs on livestock production would need be at least 35.5% less than those impacts would be “without” that expenditure, Table 7. In simple terms, if current wild dog management practices are reducing the impact on livestock production by anything more than 35.5% then the benefits are exceeding the costs.

It must be noted however that reduction of the impact on livestock production is not the only benefits from wild dog management. As discussed in the following Social impacts and Environmental impacts sections of this report the impacts of wild dogs extend beyond their effect on livestock production. The benefits of wild dog management include but are not limited to reduction in predation on native fauna, reduction in the incidence of health and psychological effects are also valuable, albeit largely unquantifiable.

Health and Psychological impacts - The health and psychological effects of wild dog activity are discussed in the following Social impacts section of this report. As discussed it is not feasible to attempt to value these social impacts. While it is conceded that their cost could be considerable those costs tend to be idiosyncratic and therefore difficult to value.

Environmental impacts - As discussed in the Environmental impacts section on environment, there is research that shows the Victorian community is willing to pay very large amounts to protect endangered species. In fact if the results of this research could be converted into payments the cost of wild dog damage to endangered species could be valued in the $10.0s of millions. The results of the research indicates that, for environmental reasons alone, the community would support some Government expenditure on wild dog control.

Enforcement - The information gathered during this study indicates that private efforts on wild dog control amount to nearly 100 person years of work per annum. One issue that became abundantly clear during the field work for this study was that farmers and land-owners are frustrated by the changes in regulations and control techniques that they are permitted to use. It doesn’t take too much imagination to conclude that if the State’s efforts to control wild dogs are seen as insufficient or ineffective farmers and land-owners could become far more aggressive in the measures they are willing to use. The likely consequence would be an increase in the cost of enforcement of regulations – if the State is not seen as doing sufficient it could quickly find itself having to fund substantially increased enforcement efforts.

Duty of care - As evidenced by the Stockwell case [5], the law requires land-owners to take reasonable measures to control pest animals. It seems that the measures do not have to be totally effective but they do need to be sufficient given the resources available. The judgement in the Stockwell case found against the State and for the plaintiff, this suggests that the State has a duty of care which if ignored could be extremely costly. It’s noted that a substantial proportion of the court ordered payment was in compensation for the reduction in value of Stockwell’s property due to the impact of wild dogs.

5. Social impacts

The social impacts of wild dogs are complex and difficult to quantify. They include personal health and safety issues and community wide economic impacts. In addition there are animal welfare issues that encompass the pain and suffering of the animals attacked by wild dogs and the distress caused to wild dogs by the control techniques used.

a. Health and safety issues

The identified health and safety issues include the psychological impact on farmers whose livestock are under attack; the human health risk of echinococcosis and the possibility of attacks on humans.

i. Psychological impact

The psychological impacts vary considerably between individuals. It is however clear that for many these impacts are significant. The distress caused by having to cope with livestock that have been killed or savaged are obvious. It is not uncommon to find livestock with severe wounds, many of which appear to have been simply savaged by a pack of marauding predators. While there is no doubt that the psychological impacts are real, it is beyond the capacity of this study to quantify those impacts.

The information in the following was collected using a Narrative Inquiry. This method gathers information through storytelling and observation of the participants. Narrative Inquiry is recognised as an appropriate method of enquiry in social science fields including psychology. The primary information was collected through discussions with five farmers, three wives and a rural counsellor. No conclusions were drawn from this information. The information is used to portray the ways the participants in the inquiry experience the impact of wild dogs on their world.

Box 1: Frustration, loss, grief and a sense of powerless

A study published in the Rural and Remote Health Journal (2007), looked at resilience in rural people and found connection to the land, which is strongly embedded in literature on indigenous peoples and acknowledged as part of indigenous culture, may also be a factor that enhances the resilience of non-indigenous people who have built up a relationship with the land over time.

When interviewing second and third generation farmers impacted by wild dog attacks, this “connection to the land” became very evident. Their stories had common themes of resilience. “I have fought hard and long. I will not let them [wild dogs] beat me.” “I know my land. It is sheep country and I love working with them.” Unfortunately their stories also had common themes of frustration, loss, grief, a sense of powerless, lack of control and helplessness which were clear indicators of the psychological pressure these farmers attribute to wild dog attacks.

Farmers by nature exhibit a high level of independence and thrive on controlling and managing their own business. In times of drought they have a measure of control by reducing stock, buying in or using stock piles of feed. In times of fire, they can fight the flames and protect their stock and property to some extent. All expressed utter frustration in trying to control wild dogs. “Trying to manage them is more frustrating than any drought or fire.”

Loss of control can give rise to a sense of powerlessness, hopelessness or despondency. “I feel like a loser.” “Nobody has any answers. It’s just talk.” “The battle is uneven, with the odds stacked in favour of the dogs, certainly not the sheep or the farmers.”

One farmer mentioned his frustration in not being able to use his hunting skills effectively. “Gun laws restrict instant action, and we cannot hunt them on crown land.” Others spoke of the frustration of having effective management tools outlawed; for example traps and baiting, as well as the rules and regulations imposed on the wild dog controllers, which restrict them from effectively using their skills to hunt and trap these pests. “We are all hobbled by rules and regulations.”

The human survival instinct to fight or flight is automatically triggered when one feels threatened in any way. Many farmers have left the sheep industry but this must be viewed in the context of drought, reduced wool prices and age related ability to continue this very physical work. Arguably continuous wild dog attacks have been a contributing factor. “The dogs were the last straw.”

Those farmers who remain sheep farmers spoke of increasing pressure to fence vast areas, spend more time staying out at night to protect stock, more time talking, talking with no action, more time recording statistics around attacks, phoning wild dog controllers when you hear them howling. “If I phoned the ‘dogger’ [sic] every time I saw or heard wild dogs, I would drive him crazy.” “I no longer report attacks. It’s a waste of time.”

The majority of those interviewed indicated that it was not so much the financial loss that affected them, but the anxiety and stress of finding sheep ripped and bleeding. Anxiety is also a result of our flight and flight response. “Destroying mutilated sheep can be devastating.” “When I drive into the paddock and see one sheep down, I feel my heart start to pound. If I see two I get a sinking feeling. I would lay a bet the dogs have been into them”.

Others spoke of being hyper vigilant, never relaxed. ”I have not slept a full night in ages. I often stay out for hours at night just waiting for them”.”Sometimes we wake to them howling at night. I can’t get back to sleep worrying about how many sheep I will find dead or mauled in the morning” Sleep is important. Poor sleep quality can result in poor attention, concentration and memory, irritability and other mood disturbances as well as impaired judgment and reaction time (Centre for Clinical Interventions). One farmer reported lack of sleep has been affecting family relationships.

The anxiety felt has escalated to fear for personal safety. One farmer told of a near miss from a dog attack. His personal experience has impacted to the extent that he will not walk around his hill country and will not allow visitors to go bush walking on his property. The uncertainty of when and where they will attack keeps them edgy. “They come like thieves in the night. Unlike drought, fire or flood, they are always there”.

The helplessness/ powerlessness or lack of control, frustration, and anxiety expressed in these stories are clear indicators of psychological stress. Evidence is accumulating on the adverse effects of psychological stress in the workplace. Clear links have been made to coronary heart disease, hypertension, peptic ulcers and type 2 diabetes. The most direct indicator of its effect has been the dramatic increase in the number and cost of associated workers compensation claims for work-related (occupational) stress.

The paddock, in which the farmer finds his stock dead and maimed, is his workplace. He suffers occupational stress as a direct result of wild dog attacks.

References:

Hegney, D.G. et al (2007), Individual resilience in rural people: a Queensland study, Australia. Rural and Remote Health Vol: 7 Iss: 620. Published 22 October, 2007. http/rrh.org.au

Galbally, Rhonda. (2007) Community cohesion, resilience and health development in regional Australia, 9th National Rural Health Conference, March, 2007.

Russell, Grant. & Roach, Sally. (2002) Occupational stress: a survey of management in general practice, Medical Journal of Australia. Vol: 176. Pp367-370

Facts about Sleep. Centre for Clinical Intervention, www.cci.health.wa.gov.au retrieved August 2010.

Prepared by: Kate Wheeler (RN, RM, MHR&R, MMHN), Clinical Nurse Consultant – Mental Health, Upper Murray Health & Community Services. Kate has worked as a nurse in the Upper Murray Region since 1972; since 2000 her work has focussed on mental health issues.

ii. Public health risks

Wild dogs carry hydatids and research has shown that where wild dogs are active there is an increase in the level of hydatids cysts found in sheep carcasses (Grainger & Jenkins, 1996). Other animals including some native animals can also become infected with hydatids. When humans become infected with hydatids they develop a disease known as echinococcosis. In most States echinococcosis is considered serious enough to be classified as a notifiable disease. It was also a notifiable disease in Victoria until 2007. In practice there have been very few cases notified in Victoria however this may simply reflect the fact that the disease can lie dormant for many years and may cause death without specific diagnosis.

In the absence of more definitive data it is not possible to quantify the impact of echinococcosis. It is even less possible to clearly link wild dogs to echinococcosis in humans [6]. The most that can be said is that the increased incidence of hydatids in sheep in areas known to contain wild dogs indicates that that there is an increased risk of echinococcosis in areas where wild dogs are present. This increased risk is greatest for people who frequent environments contaminated by wild dogs and come in contact with wild dogs or their faeces.

There may be other human health risks associated with wild dogs but these were not identified during this study and it is likely that if such diseases do exist their impact would also be impossible to quantify.

iii. Attacks on humans

There is an increasing fear amongst rural communities in areas where wild dogs are active that there will be attacks on humans. There have been reports of wild dogs threatening humans but, to date, there have been no reported cases of attacks on humans in Victoria.

There have been two well documented cases elsewhere in Australia where wild dogs attacked and killed humans. It should however be noted that these were remarkably unusual situations and in both cases involved wild dogs that had been regularly fed by humans and had become habituated to contact with people.

While it is possible to speculate on what might happen, there is no concrete evidence that wild dogs are a substantial threat to humans. If anything the evidence suggests that wild dogs almost invariably avoid human contact. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary it is not appropriate to include the risk of attack in a benefit/cost analysis.

iv. Impacts on local communities

It has been suggested that the shift from sheep farming to cattle farming caused by wild dog activity has accelerated the decline in local employment and hence jeopardised the viability of local communities. Prima facie this argument is plausible. Sheep farming requires a higher level of human input per DSE than cattle farming. In particular sheep need to be shorn, crutched and shepherded. While most of the shearing has long since been done by itinerant contractors, local demand for occasional shearing and shepherding has sustained some local employment. However the suggestion that wild dogs are jeopardising the viability of local communities is probably taking the argument too far. The impact of wild dogs is likely to be far less than the combined impact of increasing agricultural productivity and competition from large regional cities [7].

While it is unlikely that wild dog activity is the principal cause of the decline in any local community it is likely that the loss of employment resulting from wild dog activity has weakened some communities. Loss of local employment does have a negative multiplier impact on local communities by reducing the demand for goods and services within those communities. The consequent flow on effects multiply the local impact of lost employment.

This argument is dismissed by some economists who assert that the loss of employment and its multiplier effects are irrelevant because erstwhile workers will relocate and hence the level of economic activity will remain unchanged. That macro argument ignores the local impacts. The fact that work is transferred elsewhere and aggregate economic activity remains unaffected is of little comfort to local communities that find their economic base eroding. In reality the loss of local employment opportunities does have a multiplier effect on local communities but the extent of that impact dissipates as the “distance” from the impact increases.

This analysis captures the direct impacts on employment through the reduction in productivity. While the potential multiplier effects are not directly incorporated into the benefit/cost analysis, the potential local impacts are described. It is noted that no compelling evidence was found to clearly link the activity of wild dogs to the demise of any particular community in Victoria.

b. Animal welfare concerns

The issue of animal welfare is particularly contentious. Animal welfare advocates have successfully argued for the use of humane measures when controlling wild dogs. Many farmers and wild dog controllers are concerned that these measures will compromise their ability to mitigate the damage done by wild dogs. Commenting on the adequacy or appropriateness of control measures is beyond the scope of this study.

There is also a perception amongst farmers that animal welfare advocates ignore the severe suffering of livestock that have been attacked by wild dogs. This commonly held view is not correct. Animal welfare advocates are concerned about livestock welfare as is evidenced by legislation concerning animal transport, neglect, abuse and husbandry (mulesing). In fact if a farmer did not act to mitigate the suffering caused by wild dog attack that farmer would be liable for prosecution.

Given that the purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the benefit/cost of current wild dog management the animal welfare concerns are irrelevant to the analysis.

6. Environmental impacts

a. Impact on fauna

While their predation on livestock is clearly a problem for farmers, the main source of food for wild dogs is native fauna and feral animals, many of which are taken on public lands. This predation has both positive and negative consequences. On the positive side wild dogs have been shown to prey upon feral rabbits, goats, foxes and cats. They may also take juvenile deer and pigs and perhaps occasionally mature deer and pigs. To the extent that wild dogs prey upon feral animals they help mitigate the impact of those pests. They also however prey upon native fauna and there is some evidence to show that in some circumstances the impact of this predation can be severe.

i. Apex predator

Victorian forest ecosystems have evolved with an apex predator, the dingo, which provided a regulatory effect on populations of prey animals including native grazers and other native predators. While wild dogs may provide a similar regulatory effect on native animals, the extent to which predation by wild dogs (including dingo hybrids) creates a “natural” or desirable predation regime which regulates prey and other components of the ecosystem cannot be determined with current knowledge. Wild dogs may also regulate other feral animals including rabbits foxes, cats, pigs and deer, thereby reducing the damage caused by those feral animals. Wild dogs may also contribute to the loss of the dingo itself through competition, and genetic contamination. The net costs of these positive and negative impacts is unknown.

If this argument is correct then, in the context of a social benefit costs analysis, their impact on native fauna is irrelevant. There are however several issues that need to be considered before simply accepting this premise.

ii. Feral animal

Never the less research has shown that the Victorian community places a very high value on the preservation and conservation of native fauna. In a study reported in 2001, the value of the Leadbeater’s possum to the Victorian community was assessed to be between $40 million and $84 million per year (Jakobsson K & Dragun A, 2001 pp 211-227). When the study was undertaken this represented a value of between $29 and $61 per household. The same study reported that the range of values for conserving all 700 endangered species was between $160 and $340 million per year. This example should not be taken to suggest that wild dogs are a direct threat to the survival of the Leadbeater’s possum, the example has been included here solely for the purpose of highlighting the amount the Victorian community would be willing to pay to protect an endangered species.

Other research has shown that wild dogs can have a substantial impact on native species, Table 13. Fleming observed that the brush tail rock wallabies appeared locally extinct in an area where dogs and foxes had been uncontrolled. It is noted that in Victoria the brush tail rock wallaby is classified critically endangered (Victoria Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988).

Table 13: Footprint and other sign indices [1]

Site	1993 Survey No.	Wallaroo (Macropus robustus)	Brush Tail Rock Wallaby (Petrogale penicillata)
Aberfoyle River:	1	n.r.	n.r.
Dogs and foxes	2	2.48	0.26
	3	1.66	0.34
	4	1.94	0.34
Sara & Boyd Rivers:	1	0.24	0
	2	0.22	0
	3	0.34	0
	4	0.10	0
t		7.34	n.a.
d.f.		2
p		0.02

[1] observed tracks and other sign per 100 metres - adjusted for visibility Source: Fleming P.J.S. (1996) Table 6.8 pp 154

However, other endangered species may benefit from the regulation of native or exotic grazer populations, or from a reduction in population density of other exotic predators, such as foxes or cats. While the Victorian community would be willing to pay a substantial amount to protect native species from extinction, this does not imply that there is a causal relation between native species protection and wild dog impacts or control, and therefore this value cannot necessarily be linked to the costs of wild dog impacts.

b. Flora and geophysical impacts

There is some concern that wild dogs are having an indirect and adverse impact on the flora and geophysical environment. The browsing habit of sheep helps control weeds. Sheep typically browse closer to the ground than cattle and will eat the fresh shoots of some woody weeds. Also they will effectively graze steep land that cattle will transit but not graze. Evidence of this impact can be seen throughout the North East of Victoria where sheep have been removed from steep land due to pressure from wild dogs. Much of this land has been colonized by weeds since the removal of sheep. The impact is not confined to steep land, elsewhere where sheep have been replaced by cattle the difficulty of controlling noxious and other weeds has increased.

In areas where sheep have been removed farmers rely more heavily on herbicides to control weeds. This is costly and on some steep land, impractical. Where herbicides are used there is also a risk that the chemicals may be leached into the water table and adjoining streams.

While the impact of wild dogs on flora and the geophysical environment are indirect, they are none the less real.

c. Summary

Finally, the impact wild dogs have on private land is largely independent of their possible role as an “apex predator” or feral animal in public forests. Provided their impact is limited to public forests the private cost will be trivial. The issue would then become the extent to which their role in the trophic relationships impacts on the sustainability of native flora and fauna.

Given the complexities, uncertainties and lack of concrete data surrounding the role and impact of wild dogs in the environment it is not possible to calculate the benefit/cost of their environmental impact. As such the environmental impact of wild dogs is not factored into this analysis.

Appendix I: Scope of Study

The purpose of this study is to prepare a Social Benefit/Cost Analysis (SBCA). The information will be used to help the Victorian Government frame a wild dog management programme.

The Scope of the Task specified in the project brief encompasses:

Private costs of wild dogs in Victoria, including but not limited to:
- Livestock losses/injuries
- Other impacts e.g. tender wool, disease
- Wild dog control
Public costs – direct costs incurred by government in undertaking wild dog management, including costs associated with wild dog research.
Social impacts, including but not limited to:
- Psychological impacts
- Public health risks
- Impacts on local communities
- Animal welfare concerns
Environmental impacts, including but not limited to:
- Hybridisation with pure dingoes
- Predation on other established pest animals and native wildlife
- Impacts of wild dog control on non-target species
Consulting with the Gippsland and North East Wild Dog Management Groups;
Consulting with relevant industry bodies, agribusiness enterprises and community groups throughout the project to ensure a robust social benefit cost analysis is prepared;
Consulting with relevant Victorian Government agency, department and divisional staff throughout the project to ensure a robust social benefit cost analysis is prepared; and
Reporting as per Department of Primary Industries (DPI) requirements, including a conclusion/commentary on the findings.

This excludes reviewing or developing:

government policies relating to wild dog management in Victoria;
operational procedures relating to wild dog management in Victoria, and
regulatory impact statements relating to wild dog management in Victoria.

Appendix II: Data tables

Appendix table 1: Estimation of annual dry sheep equivalent (DSE) of Merino and crossbred flocks

Flock	Time months	Average DSEs	Total DSEs [1]
Merino (40 kg)
Dry ewes	3	0.9	0.23
Pregnant first 3 months	3	0.9-1.0 (80% pregnant) 0.9 (20% dry)	0.24
Pregnant last months	2	1.4 (80% pregnant) 1.0 (20% dry)
Lactating	4	2.4 (75% lactating) 1.0 (25% dry)	0.67
Weaned lambs [2]	12	1.0(75% lambs marked) (5% death)	0.7
Total per ewe (including lambs)			2.06
Crossbreds (60 kg)
Dry ewes	3	1.2	0.3
Pregnant first 3 months	3	1.3 (94% pregnant) 1.2 (6% dry)	0.33
Pregnant last months	2	1.7 (92% pregnant) 1.3 (8% dry)	0.29
Lactating	4	3.6 (88% lactating) 1.2 (12% dry)	1.15
Weaned lambs [3]	12	1.7 (37% lambs marked) (3% deaths)	0.06
Total per ewe (including lambs)			2.13

[1] Total DSE = (Months/12) * (Average DSE * %)/100

[2] All lambs kept to 18 months, then only ewe replacments kept

[3] 60% of lambs sold at weaning (4 months), the remaining 37% turned off 1 month after weaning. All ewe replacements bought in.

Appendix table 2: Dry sheep equivalents (DSE) for different classes of sheep and beef cattle based on daily energy requirements

Class of stock	DSE at specific weights
Sheep (Merino)
Weaned lambs	15 kg	25 kg
gaining 100 g/day	0.9	1.2
gaining 200 g/day	1.4	1.8
Mature sheep	40 kg	50 kg
Dry ewes, wethers (store)	0.9	1.1
gaining 50g/day	1.2	1.4
gaining 100g/day	1.5	1.7
Pregnant ewes last 6 weeks bearing singles	1.4	1.6
Pregnant ewes last 6 weeks bearing twins	1.8	2
Ewe with single lamb at foot	2.4	3.1
Ewe with twin lamb at foot	2.8	3.3
Beef (British breed)
Weaned calves	200 kg	250 kg
gaining 250 g/day	5.5	6.5
gaining 750 g/day	8	9
Yearling	300kg	350kg
gaining 250 g/day	7	8
gaining 750 g/day	10	11
Mature cattle	400 kg	500 kg
Dry cows, steers (store)	7	8
gaining 250 g/day	8	9
Bullocks (store)	8	9
gaining 750 g/day	12	14
Pregnant cows last 3 months	9	11
Cows with 0-3 month calf	14	18
Cows with 4-6 month calf	18	22
Cows with 7-10 month calf	22	25

Appendix III: Bibliography

Publications and reports

Allen L, Lee J, Gonzalez A (1998) 'The management and eradication of feral goats from Townshend Island.' (Department of Natural Resources: Toowoomba)

Allen LR, Gonzalez A (1998) Baiting reduces dingo numbers, changes age structures yet often increases calf losses. In 'Proceedings of the 11th Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference'. Bunbury, Western Australia pp. 421-428

American Sheep Industry Association (undated) Sheep and noxious weed control, Sheep and the Environment, Centennial - Colorado

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) State and Regional Indicators, Victoria, Jun 2010, Canberra

Backholer, J.R. (1986). A survey of landholders on the wild dog problem in Eastern Victoria. Land Protection Service; Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Victoria.

Ballard, G. (Ed.) (2006) Social Drivers of Invasive Animal Control. Proceedings of the Invasive Animals CRC workshop on social drivers of invasive animal control, 26th – 27th July 2006, Adelaide.

Benjamin L. Allen, Richard M. Engemanb and Lee R. Allen (2010 - draft) Wild dogma: A closer look at the circumstances surrounding recent circumstantial evidence for the biodiversity benefits of dingoes

Chadwick, Douglas H (2010) Wolf Wars, National Geographic Magazine, March 2010, Washington DC. P34-55

Claridge, Andrew W. and Hunt, Rob (2006) Evaluating the role of the Dingo as a trophic regulator: Additional practical suggestions, Ecological Management & Restoration Vol 9 No 2 August 2008. p116-119

Court, J. (1994) Gippsland Pasture and Wool Project Survey 1993, Department of Agriculture, Bairnsdale

Department of Primary Industries (2007) Productivity benefit of wild dog control in North East and Gippsland regions of Victoria – Draft Report. Prepared by Landscape Protection Strategies, Catchment and Agriculture Services, Victoria, June 2007

Department of Primary Industries (2007) Wild Dogs and Dingoes in Victoria, Land Care Notes : 12/2007 (LC0317), Melbourne

Department of Primary Industries (2008) Various articles, Under Control – Pest Plant and Animal Management News, No 37 – July 2008, Melbourne

Department of Primary Industries (2010) Northern Victoria Irrigated Cropping – Gross Margins 2009-10, Farm Services Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, Echuca

Department of Primary Industries (2010) Taking Control – Winter 2010, Gippsland and North East Wild Dog Management Groups, Victoria

Department of Primary Industries (various) South West Farm Monitor Project, Victoria.

Fitzgerald, G and Wilkinson, R (2009). Assessing the social impact of invasive animals in Australia. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.

Flannagan, Bill (2010) Sick of useless meetings, Bairnsdale Advertiser, August 6, 2010, Bairnsdale

Fleming P. J. S., Allen L. R., Lapidge S. J., Robley, A., Saunders G. R. and Thomson P. C. (2006) A strategic approach to mitigating the impacts of wild canids: Proposed activities of the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 46 , 753–762.

Furze, Brian (2010) Improving Landholder Capacity in Wild Dog Management: some perspectives from the Victorian experience, La Trobe University, Wodonga 3690

Gong, Wendy, Sinden J, Braysher M and Jones R. (2009) The economic impacts of vertebrate pests in Australia. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.

Grainger, H.J and Jenkins, D.J. (1996) Transmission of Hydatid Disease to Sheep from Wild Dogs in Victoria, Australia. International Journal for Parisitology, Vol 26 No. 11. pp. 1263-1270

Hamilton, Leo (1997) Gippsland Pasture and Wool Project, Dept of Agriculture, Bairnsdale

Hansard (2004) Impact on agriculture of pest animals, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Friday, 18 June 2004, Wodonga

Hewitt, L (2009). Major economic costs associated with wild dogs in Queensland grazing industry, Blueprints for the Bush, Queensland.

Jakobsson K & Dragun A, (2001) The worth of a possum, Valuing a species with contingent valuation method. Enviroment and Resources Economics 19(3) pp 211-227

Jenkins, David J and Karen Power, (1996) Human hydatidosis in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, 1987-1992, Medical Journal of Australia 1996; 164: 14-17)

King, Catriona. (2008) North East Wild Dog Management Group – Action Plan Evaluation 2005-2008, Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne

Landmann, J. et al (2005) Neospora caninum: A major cause of bovine abortion in Australia? DPI&F Note, Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane

Lawson, J. Ruth (1994) 'Hydatid disease and sheep measles: The history of their control and the economics of a recent change of control policy', New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 21: 1, 83 — 89

McGuinness, Simon and the North East Wild Dog Management Group (2005) A Three – Year Plan to guide Wild Dog Management in North East Victoria -2005-2008, Department of Primary Industries and Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.

McLaren, Colin (1997) Dry Sheep Equivalents for comparing different classes of livestock. AG0590 : Dept of Primary Industries, Attwood

McRae, Chris (1976) Land to Pasture, James Yeates & Sons, Bairnsdale

National Summit on wild dogs (2002), Proceedings, Wodonga

Nocturnal Wild Life Research, (2008) Review: Welfare outcomes of leg-hold trap use in Victoria, Malvern

Philip J. Nyhus, Steven A. Osofsky, Paul Ferraro,F rancine Madden & Hank Fischer (2005): The challenges of compensation schemes. Published in Bearing the costs of human-wildlife conflict, Rosie Woodroffe, Simon J. Thirgood, Alan Rabinowitz, p 107 – 121, Cambridge University Press

Productivity Commission 2009, Government Drought Support, Report No. 46, Final Inquiry Report, Melbourne

Rural Management Partners, (2004) Economic assessment of dingos/wild dogs in Queensland, prepared for the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, State of Queensland.

Smith, Simone (2010) Herd hit by deadly bug, Weekly Times, August 25, 2010. P103.

Vallentine, John F. (2001) Grazing Management – 2nd Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, pp 219-222

Online sources

Rural Law on Line, http://www.rurallaw.org.au/handbook/xml/ch03s11s08.php

Robins, Emma - Wild dog control efforts continues in North-East: From the Minister for Agriculture, Thursday, 16 July 2009, http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/component/content/article/7545.html

ABC South East NSW (Bega), Rural Report - Wild dog attacks still prevalent in Victoria, 17/06/2009 06:38am, http://www.ssaa.org.au/media-monitoring/2009/2009-06-17_wild-dog-attacks-still-prevalent-victoria.html

Gocher, Keva - Wild dog killing spree in high country, Monday, 14/12/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2009/s2771097.htm

RSPCA - Wild Dog Trapping - Victoria's Shame, http://www.rspcavic.org/campaigns_news/campaigns_wild_dog_traps.htm

Robins, Emma - More money needed for wild dog control, 18 Feb, 2010 04:28 PM, http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/more-money-needed-for-wild-dog-control/1754927.aspx?storypage=2

Animal Control Technologies - Excellence in Pest Animal Management Technologies, http://www.animalcontrol.com.au/dogs.htm

Parks Victoria, Methods of control, 07 Sep 2009, http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1noticesmore.cfm?noticeid=903

Animals Australia - In wild dog country, all death is merciless, 7 December 2008, http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/in_the_news.php?article=252

Bureau of Rural Sciences - Wild Dogs, http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/land/feral-animals/past_nfacp_projects_by_species/wild_dogs

Jennings, Gavin – Efforts to preserve Victoria's pure-bred dingo population will not undermine wild dog control, Weekly Times, November 11, 2008, http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2008/11/11/22615_opinion-news.html

Efficient Farming – Agricultural News, Victoria criticised for wild dog program, Story Added : 16th December 2009, http://www.efarming.com.au/News/agricultural/16/12/2009/81338/victoria-criticised-for-wild-dog-program.html

Minister for Agriculture - Wild dog management groups appointed in Gippsland and North-East Victoria, Tuesday, 18 November 2008, http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/component/content/article/5377.html

[1] The Dry Sheep Equivalent (DSE) is a standard unit frequently used to compare the feed requirements of different classes of stock or to assess the carrying capacity and potential productivity of a given farm or area of grazing land. Source: Department of Primary Industry Agnote AG0590, September 1997.

[2] Sensitivity analysis is a technique for systematically changing parameters in a model to determine the effects of such changes have on the results produced by that model. The technique is a useful way to determine the robustness of the results – for example if a relatively small change in a variable causes a major change in the results then those results can be said to be highly sensitive to changes in that particular variable.

[3] The break-even benefits v’s costs are calculated by increasing the level of intensity of wild dog impact in the model. The level is increased until the benefits achieved equal the costs incurred.

[4] This assertion has been disputed. There is scientific evidence that shows most wild dogs remain in home territories for at least as long as the food supply is adequate. However maturing male dogs do range over wider areas and it is highly likely that some young females do the same. If this was not the case wild dog would not be so wide spread.

[5] Stockwell v State of Victoria [2001] VSC 497 (17 December 2001)

[6] It is noted that foxes also carry hydatids and therefore are a potential source of echinococcosis infection in humans.

[7] This argument may not hold elsewhere in Australia where remote communities are tightly reliant on the livestock industries and are less able to access services in regional centres.