Editing Dingo (section)

==Control measures==
{{More citations needed section|date=October 2014}}
Dingo attacks on livestock led to widescale efforts to repel them from areas with intensive agricultural usage, and all states and territories have enacted laws for the control of dingoes.<ref name="impact"/> In the early 20th century, fences were erected to keep dingoes away from areas frequented by sheep, and a tendency to routinely eradicate dingoes developed among some livestock owners. Established methods for the control of dingoes in sheep areas entailed the employment of specific workers on every property. The job of these people (who were nicknamed "doggers") was to reduce the number of dingoes by using [[Animal trapping|steel traps]], [[Bait (luring substance)|baits]], firearms and other methods. The responsibility for the control of wild dogs lay solely in the hands of the landowners. At the same time, the government was forced to control the number of dingoes. As a result, a number of measures for the control of dingoes developed over time. It was also considered that dingoes travel over long distances to reach areas with richer prey populations, and the control methods were often concentrated along "paths" or "trails" and in areas that were far away from sheep areas. All dingoes were regarded as a potential danger and were hunted.

Apart from the introduction of the poison [[Sodium fluoroacetate|1080]] (extensively used for 40 years and nicknamed "doggone"), the methods and strategies for controlling wild dogs have changed little over time. Information concerning cultural importance to indigenous people and the importance of dingoes and the impact of control measures on other species is also lacking in some areas. Historically, the attitudes and needs of indigenous people were not taken into account when dingoes were controlled. Other factors that might be taken into account are the genetic status (degree of interbreeding) of dingoes in these areas, ownership and land usage, as well as a reduction of killing measures to areas outside the zones. However, most control measures and the appropriate studies are there to minimise the loss of livestock and not to protect dingoes.

Increasing pressure from environmentalists against the random killing of dingoes, as well as the impact on other animals, demanded that more information needed to be gathered to prove the necessity of control measures and to disprove the claim of unnecessary killings. Today, permanent population control is regarded as necessary to reduce the impact of all wild dogs and to ensure the survival of the "pure" dingo in the wild.<ref name="Nord"/>

===Guardian animals===
To protect livestock, [[livestock guardian dog]]s (for example, [[Maremma Sheepdog|Maremmas]]), [[donkey]]s, [[alpaca]]s and [[llama]]s are used.<ref name="wilddogs/dingo">{{cite web|title=Wild dogs/dingo Canis familiaris/Canis familiaris (dingo) |url=http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Wild-Dog-Strategy.pdf |publisher=Queensland Government |date=September 2002 |access-date=13 May 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090531220438/http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Wild-Dog-Strategy.pdf |archive-date=31 May 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Pest of the past, dingo's star in the ascendancy|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pest-of-the-past-dingoes-star-in-the-ascendancy/2007/07/21/1184560109155.html|date=22 July 2007|access-date=16 May 2009|location=Melbourne|work=The Age|archive-date=5 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131205161437/http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pest-of-the-past-dingoes-star-in-the-ascendancy/2007/07/21/1184560109155.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Dingo Fence===
[[File:Dogfence.jpg|thumb|right|A part of the [[dingo fence]]]]
In the 1920s, the [[Dingo Fence]] was erected on the basis of the ''Wild Dog Act (1921)'' and, until 1931, thousands of miles of Dingo Fences had been erected in several areas of South Australia. In the year 1946, these efforts were directed to a single goal, and the Dingo Fence was finally completed. The fence connected with other fences in New South Wales and Queensland. The main responsibilities in maintaining the Dingo Fence still lies with the landowners whose properties border on the fence and who receive financial support from the government.

===Reward system===
A [[Bounty (reward)|reward]] system (local, as well from the government) was active from 1846 to the end of the 20th century, but there is no evidence that – despite the billions of dollars spent – it was ever an efficient control method. Therefore, its importance declined over time.<ref name="canid"/>

Dingo scalping commenced in 1912 with the passage of the [[Wild Dogs Act]] by the government of [[South Australia]]. In an attempt to reduce depredation on livestock, that government offered a bounty for dingo skins, and this program was later repeated in [[Western Australia]] and the [[Northern Territory]]. One writer argues that this new legislation and economic driver had significant impacts on Aboriginal society in the region.<ref name="Keen">{{cite book|editor=Ian Keen|title=Indigenous participation in Australian economies: Historical and anthropological perspectives|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8IhO9UdBfU4C&pg=PA91|access-date=29 March 2012|publisher=ANU E Press|isbn=978-1-921666-86-5|pages=91–|date=2010-01-01}}</ref> This act was followed by updates and amendments, including 1931, 1938, and 1948.<ref name="Australia1977">{{cite book|author=South Australia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V84_AQAAIAAJ|title=Acts of the Parliament of South Australia|publisher=Government Printer, South Africa|year=1977}}</ref>

===Poisoning===
[[File:1080PoisonWarning gobeirne.png|thumb|Warning of poisonous [[sodium fluoroacetate]] [[Bait (luring substance)|baits]]]]

Baits with the poison [[Sodium fluoroacetate|1080]] are regarded as the fastest and safest method for dog control, since they are extremely susceptible. Even small amounts of poison per dog are sufficient (0.3&nbsp;mg per kg).<ref name="Nord"/> The application of aerial baiting is regulated in the Commonwealth by the ''Civil Aviation Regulations (1988)''. The assumption that the [[tiger quoll]] might be damaged by the poison led to the dwindling of areas where aerial baiting could be performed. In areas where aerial baiting is no longer possible, it is necessary to put down baits.

From 2004, cyanide-ejectors and protection collars (filled with 1080 on certain spots) have been tested.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ejector research update |url=http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Beefy-Beast-Ed11.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091025123309/http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Beefy-Beast-Ed11.pdf |archive-date=25 October 2009 |publisher=Department of Natural Resources and Mines |work=Beefy and the Beast Issue 11 |date=August 2003 |access-date=13 May 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="beefy12">{{cite web |title=Livestock protection collars to be tested in Queensland |url=http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Beefy-Beast-Ed12.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091025122803/http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Beefy-Beast-Ed12.pdf |archive-date=25 October 2009 |publisher=Department of Natural Resources and Mines |work=Beefy and the Beast Issue 12 |date=April 2004 |access-date=13 May 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In 2016, controversy surrounded a plan to inject a population of dingoes on Pelorus Island, off the coast of northern Queensland, Australia, with pills that would release a fatal dose of 1080 poison two years after the dingoes were to be intentionally released to help eradicate goats. The dingoes were dubbed 'death-row dingoes', and the plan was blocked due to concerns for a locally threatened shorebird.<ref>{{cite web |title=Death-row dingoes plan blocked |url=https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/08/death-row-dingoes-plan-blocked/ |publisher=Australian Geographic |date=2016-08-19 |access-date=8 October 2018 |archive-date=8 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008061508/https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/08/death-row-dingoes-plan-blocked/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Neutering===
Owners of dingoes and other domestic dogs are sometimes asked to [[Neutering|neuter]] their pets and keep them under observation to reduce the number of stray/feral dogs and prevent interbreeding with dingoes.<ref name="Nord"/>

===Efficiency of measures===
The efficiency of control measures was questioned in the past and is often questioned today, as well as whether they stand in a good cost-benefit ratio. The premium system proved to be susceptible to deception and to be useless on a large scale, and can therefore only be used for getting rid of "problem-dogs".<ref name="impact"/><ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00569.x|jstor=2655734|last1=Allen|first1=L. R.|last2=Sparkes|first2=E. C.|title=The Effect of Dingo Control on Sheep and Beef Cattle in Queensland|journal=Journal of Applied Ecology|volume=38|issue=1|pages=76–87|year=2001|bibcode=2001JApEc..38...76A |doi-access=free}}</ref> Animal traps are considered inhumane and inefficient on a large scale, due to the limited efficacy of baits. Based on studies, it is assumed that only young dogs that would have died anyway can be captured.<ref name="western"/> Furthermore, wild dogs are capable of learning and sometimes are able to detect and avoid traps quite efficiently. In one case, a dingo bitch followed a dogger and triggered his traps one after another by carefully pushing her paw through the sand that covered the trap.<ref name="cunning"/>

Poisonous baits can be very effective when they are of good meat quality; however, they do not last long<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Twigg|first1=Laurie E.|last2=Eldridge|first2=Steve R.|last3=Edwards|first3=Glenn P.|last4=Shakeshaft|first4=Bernie J.|last5=Depreu|first5=Nicki D.|last6=Adams|first6=Neville|title=The longevity and efficacy of 1080 meat baits used for dingo control in central Australia|journal=Wildlife Research|volume=27|pages=473–81|year=2000|doi=10.1071/WR99044|issue=5}}</ref> and are occasionally taken by red foxes, quolls, ants and birds. Aerial baiting can nearly eliminate whole dingo populations.<ref name="western"/> Livestock guardian dogs can effectively minimise livestock losses, but are less effective on wide open areas with widely distributed livestock. Furthermore, they can be a danger to the livestock or be killed by control measures themselves when they are not sufficiently supervised by their owners.<ref name="beefy12"/> Fences are reliable in keeping wild dogs from entering certain areas, but they are expensive to build, need permanent maintenance, and only cause the problem to be relocated.

Control measures mostly result in smaller packs and a disruption of pack structure. The measures seem{{which|date=October 2014}} to be rather detrimental to the livestock industry because the empty territories are taken over by young dogs and the predation then increases. Nonetheless, it is regarded as unlikely that the control measures could completely eradicate the dingo in Central Australia, and the elimination of all wild dogs is not considered a realistic option.

It has been shown that culling a small percentage of immature dingoes on Fraser Island had little significant negative impact on the overall island population, though this is being disputed.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://theconversation.com/culling-is-no-danger-to-the-future-of-dingoes-on-fraser-island-24073|title= Culling is no danger to the future of dingoes on Fraser Island|last1= Benjamin|first1= Allen|date= 13 April 2015|website= theconversation.com|access-date= 27 April 2015|archive-date= 20 April 2015|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150420001605/http://theconversation.com/culling-is-no-danger-to-the-future-of-dingoes-on-fraser-island-24073|url-status= live}}</ref>