Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Killing dingoes is the only way to protect livestock, right? Nope

News Feed
Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Supplied, Author providedSince European colonisation, farmers have often viewed dingoes as the enemy, waging war against them to protect their livestock. Farmers felt they had no option but to eradicate dingoes using traps, shooting, poisoned baits (such as 1080) and building a 5,600km long dingo fence, the world’s longest. Killing dingoes costs millions of dollars each year. But it hasn’t resolved the conflict. In many cases it has made the threat to livestock worse by breaking up dingo families and removing experienced adults which hunt larger, more mobile prey. The alternative? As some farmers are discovering, there are unexpected benefits of learning to coexist with dingoes instead. As Western Australian cattle grazier David Pollock told us: I reckon my dingoes are worth $20,000 each, probably more. So, killing them would be the last thing that I did. Can dingoes really help graziers? Yes. In many cases, they can be allies for graziers by reducing the competition for pasture from wild herbivores such as kangaroos and goats, as well as killing or scaring off foxes and feral cats. As our understanding of the importance of predators has grown, a new approach has taken root: human-wildlife coexistence. Recently recognised by the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity, this field offers a path to stem the global loss of biodiversity by balancing the costs and benefits of living alongside wildlife. Our new research lays out seven pathways to shift from the routine killing of dingoes towards coexistence. What does coexistence look like? One path to coexistence is supporting graziers to adopt effective tools and strategies to reduce the loss of livestock while capitalising on the benefits of large predators. This is known as predator-smart farming Our research on this area has led to a new Australian guide. This approach relies on a variety of effective non-lethal tools and practices to protect livestock three main ways: humans or guardian animals such as dogs and donkeys watch over and defend livestock from dingoes, as well as using fencing to create a physical barrier using knowledge about dingo biology and behaviour to find better deterrents, such as the use of lights, sounds or smells stronger land management and livestock husbandry to increase the productive capacity of pastures and livestock resilience. This approach helps ensure the livelihoods of farmers remain resilient and makes the most of the benefits of dingoes for productive agricultural landscapes and ecosystem health. This artist’s impression of a predator smart farm shows many different deterrent methods. Amelia Baxter As one New South Wales cattle producer found, these approaches work. He told us: Three years ago, we were losing 53% of our calves to dingoes. We started looking into alternatives that were cost and time effective and decided to try guardian donkeys. We purchased two jacks (male donkeys) and now we have 94% calving rate. Donkeys saved our business. Guardian donkeys are effective dingo deterrents. Author provided So what’s stopping us? We now know it’s entirely possible to live and farm alongside dingoes. So why do we still resort to lethal control? Inertia is one barrier to change. The default option is to kill dingoes. Laws, policies and funding by government and industry have institutionalised lethal control. But there are other barriers, such as a lack of funding for different approaches from government and a lack of support from the community and graziers. Despite this resistance the number of graziers adopting predator smart farming is growing. To overcome these barriers, we believe it’s important to undertake research alongside graziers to field-test and demonstrate how these methods actually work, and which combinations work best. Changes like this take time. We also have to build connections and rapport through agricultural networks, as well as tackle the institutional infrastructure built up around dingo control. It’s natural for farmers, graziers and state government representatives to be sceptical of such a big change. But the status quo isn’t working. Living alongside dingoes could help us make some of the fundamental changes needed to stop the loss of biodiversity. To that end, public awareness and talking about this openly can help bring something which has long gone unquestioned into the spotlight. Our research emerged from in-depth interviews with Australian livestock producers, ecologists, conservation and animal welfare groups, industry representatives and policy makers as well as field observations and analysis of Australia’s wild dog action plan. Coexisting with dingoes could be a win-win for livestock farmers. Shutterstock If we do make progress towards coexisting with dingoes, we could embed predator-smart techniques in the way we farm to boost biodiversity, landscape resilience, food security and livelihoods. We would bring back dingoes as apex predators and regulators of healthy ecosystems. Politics would take a step back, in favour of scientific, evidence-based approaches and First Nations input into environmental policies. This is not hypothetical. Graziers and landholders already using predator-smart tools and strategies report many benefits. They include: fewer animals injured or killed by dingoes less time spent stalking and killing dingoes lower total grazing pressure from feral grazers such as goats boosting pasture growth and livestock profitability. Landholders for Dingoes promotes the work of landholders who are coexisting with dingoes. It’s time to modernise Australia’s approach to dingoes. This approach offers a potential win-win for farmers and dingoes, as well as significant gains for nature. But to make this happen, we will have to shift our attitude towards dingoes, gain support from graziers and other stakeholders, and make non-lethal coexistence tools and approaches the new standard practice. Read more: From the dingo to the Tasmanian devil - why we should be rewilding carnivores Louise Boronyak was funded by the University of Technology Sydney under the UTS Research Excellence Scholarship. She is is a research affiliate of the University of Technology Sydney and Humane Society International AustraliaBradley Smith is an unpaid director of the Australian Dingo Foundation, a non-profit environmental charity that advocates for dingo conservation. He also serves as a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dingo working group, which is part of their Species Survival Commission (Canids Specialist Group).

For more than 200 years, European farmers have killed dingoes to protect livestock. But living alongside dingoes benefits nature - and actually helps graziers

Supplied, Author provided

Since European colonisation, farmers have often viewed dingoes as the enemy, waging war against them to protect their livestock. Farmers felt they had no option but to eradicate dingoes using traps, shooting, poisoned baits (such as 1080) and building a 5,600km long dingo fence, the world’s longest.

Killing dingoes costs millions of dollars each year. But it hasn’t resolved the conflict. In many cases it has made the threat to livestock worse by breaking up dingo families and removing experienced adults which hunt larger, more mobile prey.

The alternative? As some farmers are discovering, there are unexpected benefits of learning to coexist with dingoes instead. As Western Australian cattle grazier David Pollock told us:

I reckon my dingoes are worth $20,000 each, probably more. So, killing them would be the last thing that I did.

Can dingoes really help graziers?

Yes. In many cases, they can be allies for graziers by reducing the competition for pasture from wild herbivores such as kangaroos and goats, as well as killing or scaring off foxes and feral cats.

As our understanding of the importance of predators has grown, a new approach has taken root: human-wildlife coexistence. Recently recognised by the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity, this field offers a path to stem the global loss of biodiversity by balancing the costs and benefits of living alongside wildlife.

Our new research lays out seven pathways to shift from the routine killing of dingoes towards coexistence.

What does coexistence look like?

One path to coexistence is supporting graziers to adopt effective tools and strategies to reduce the loss of livestock while capitalising on the benefits of large predators. This is known as predator-smart farming

Our research on this area has led to a new Australian guide. This approach relies on a variety of effective non-lethal tools and practices to protect livestock three main ways:

  • humans or guardian animals such as dogs and donkeys watch over and defend livestock from dingoes, as well as using fencing to create a physical barrier

  • using knowledge about dingo biology and behaviour to find better deterrents, such as the use of lights, sounds or smells

  • stronger land management and livestock husbandry to increase the productive capacity of pastures and livestock resilience.

This approach helps ensure the livelihoods of farmers remain resilient and makes the most of the benefits of dingoes for productive agricultural landscapes and ecosystem health.

This artist’s impression of a predator smart farm shows many different deterrent methods. Amelia Baxter

As one New South Wales cattle producer found, these approaches work. He told us:

Three years ago, we were losing 53% of our calves to dingoes. We started looking into alternatives that were cost and time effective and decided to try guardian donkeys. We purchased two jacks (male donkeys) and now we have 94% calving rate. Donkeys saved our business.

guardian donkey
Guardian donkeys are effective dingo deterrents. Author provided

So what’s stopping us?

We now know it’s entirely possible to live and farm alongside dingoes. So why do we still resort to lethal control?

Inertia is one barrier to change. The default option is to kill dingoes. Laws, policies and funding by government and industry have institutionalised lethal control.

But there are other barriers, such as a lack of funding for different approaches from government and a lack of support from the community and graziers. Despite this resistance the number of graziers adopting predator smart farming is growing.

To overcome these barriers, we believe it’s important to undertake research alongside graziers to field-test and demonstrate how these methods actually work, and which combinations work best.

Changes like this take time. We also have to build connections and rapport through agricultural networks, as well as tackle the institutional infrastructure built up around dingo control.

It’s natural for farmers, graziers and state government representatives to be sceptical of such a big change. But the status quo isn’t working. Living alongside dingoes could help us make some of the fundamental changes needed to stop the loss of biodiversity.

To that end, public awareness and talking about this openly can help bring something which has long gone unquestioned into the spotlight.

Our research emerged from in-depth interviews with Australian livestock producers, ecologists, conservation and animal welfare groups, industry representatives and policy makers as well as field observations and analysis of Australia’s wild dog action plan.

sheep farm australia
Coexisting with dingoes could be a win-win for livestock farmers. Shutterstock

If we do make progress towards coexisting with dingoes, we could embed predator-smart techniques in the way we farm to boost biodiversity, landscape resilience, food security and livelihoods. We would bring back dingoes as apex predators and regulators of healthy ecosystems. Politics would take a step back, in favour of scientific, evidence-based approaches and First Nations input into environmental policies.

This is not hypothetical. Graziers and landholders already using predator-smart tools and strategies report many benefits. They include:

  • fewer animals injured or killed by dingoes
  • less time spent stalking and killing dingoes
  • lower total grazing pressure from feral grazers such as goats
  • boosting pasture growth and livestock profitability.

Landholders for Dingoes promotes the work of landholders who are coexisting with dingoes.

It’s time to modernise Australia’s approach to dingoes. This approach offers a potential win-win for farmers and dingoes, as well as significant gains for nature.

But to make this happen, we will have to shift our attitude towards dingoes, gain support from graziers and other stakeholders, and make non-lethal coexistence tools and approaches the new standard practice.


Read more: From the dingo to the Tasmanian devil - why we should be rewilding carnivores


The Conversation

Louise Boronyak was funded by the University of Technology Sydney under the UTS Research Excellence Scholarship. She is is a research affiliate of the University of Technology Sydney and Humane Society International Australia

Bradley Smith is an unpaid director of the Australian Dingo Foundation, a non-profit environmental charity that advocates for dingo conservation. He also serves as a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dingo working group, which is part of their Species Survival Commission (Canids Specialist Group).

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Are the jobs created by the Inland Empire warehouse boom built to last?

The main justification for the explosion of warehouses in the Inland Empire has been their economic benefits, primarily around job creation. But the wages they provide barely keep people out of poverty, and this work may soon disappear altogether because of automation. Is the region prepared for what comes next?

In summary The main justification for the explosion of warehouses in the Inland Empire has been their economic benefits, primarily around job creation. But the wages they provide barely keep people out of poverty, and this work may soon disappear altogether because of automation. Is the region prepared for what comes next? Much of the debate over warehouse construction in the Inland Empire – where the boom has been explosive in recent years – revolves around a single word: jobs. Are the jobs worth it? Warehouses are, after all, both a job creator and an inconvenience. They take up large amounts of land that could be used for other purposes, from housing to open space. They are serviced by trucks, sometimes 24 hours a day. And with those trucks come traffic, air pollution and noise. They are not especially good neighbors. But that’s true of a lot of economic activity. People don’t necessarily love to live near schools or hospitals, but they accept them as necessary parts of any community. What makes warehouses worth it, at least some of the time, is the jobs that they produce. So, how great is the economic benefit in terms of jobs that warehouses bring to Riverside and San Bernardino counties, where the number of these buildings has been geometrically expanding?  It is both significant and significantly worrisome.  Matt Englhard is a developer and leader of the National Association of Office Parks, known as NAIOP. He’s been building projects in Southern California, including the Inland Empire, for decades. He sees warehouses as a crucial link in the region’s economy, both in terms of their importance to international trade and for the local jobs they create. “Warehousing is one of the better entry jobs in the region,” he said in a recent interview. Yes, many of those warehouse jobs begin at or near minimum wage, but those are appealing to many young people seeking their first employment.  Moreover, entry-level jobs offer paths for promotion. Warehouse workers can become forklift drivers, electricians, truck drivers or warehouse supervisors – all with significant income potential. There’s nothing novel or wrong about starting at a low wage and moving up.  With warehouses moving adjacent to some of the Inland Empire’s wealthier neighborhoods, residents have complained that minimum-wage employment will hardly allow those workers to live nearby. That means they come from far away, creating traffic and air pollution. Englhard concedes that some of those homes will be out of reach to new workers. But that’s hardly new. After all, he asked, “how many 18 to 30 year-olds are buying $700,000 homes?” The new jobs created by warehouses, said Englhard and Jonathan Sharldow, another NAIOP leader, help explain why the Inland Empire has demonstrated economic resiliency in recent years. They pointed to a 2019 study by the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institute that concluded, among other things, that the “Inland Empire’s logistics and manufacturing industries are crucial drivers of economic growth and prosperity.”  That economic foundation, the authors concluded, helped the region withstand the recession in the early 2000s and produce “unexpectedly swift jobs recovery.”  An Amazon warehouse in San Bernardino on Feb. 16, 2023. Warehouses in the Inland Empire have grown at an exponentially high pace. Photo by Pablo Unzueta for CalMatters But that same report also lamented the uneven nature of that recovery, with only very wealthy residents showing economic gains. By 2016, some 41% of Inland Empire families were classified as “struggling.” The region’s poverty rate rose from 13% in 2005 to 16% in 2016.  That’s despite the explosive growth of warehouses. In 1980, there were 234 warehouses across the Inland Empire. Since then, the number has roughly doubled every 10 years. Today, there are more than 4,000, and they take up roughly 1 billion square feet of land.  The logistics industry, anchored by warehouses, employs more than 200,000 people in the Inland Empire.  Those jobs have helped some young people find work and have supplied opportunities for others to promote. But they have not dented poverty rates, nor have they helped reduce inequality. “The argument we hear all the time is ‘these jobs are better than no jobs,’” said Susan Phillips, a professor of environmental analysis at Pitzer College and director of the Robert Redford Conservancy. But that, she said, is a false choice that suggests warehouses are the region’s only option. And these jobs, most of them close to minimum wage, come at a cost: the lost opportunity to develop other parts of the economy, which might be more prosperous or resilient.  “One of the problems with warehouses is that they take up a lot of land,” Phillips said. “They crowd out the room for anything else to grow.” There is yet another problem to consider. Many types of work are subject to stress these days. Generative artificial intelligence is threatening writers and lawyers and all manner of other workers, and automation is transforming others. Warehouse employment is particularly vulnerable to both trends.  Automation already has become so sophisticated that manufacturers already dream of “dark warehouses,” which are facilities powered by robots and AI and don’t need lights (robots are happy to work in the dark).  Those warehouses won’t replace current ones tomorrow – the investment costs are significant – but they may not be far away.  “We need to be prepared,” said Johannes Moenius, a professor at the University of Redlands and director of the Institute for Spatial Economic Analysis. “Within the next 10 years, the warehouse sector will undergo tremendous changes.” “Within the next 10 years, the warehouse sector will undergo tremendous changes.”Johannes Moenius, University of Redlands professor and director of the Institute for Spatial Economic Analysis He’s not exaggerating. One study by the institute concluded that some 75% of warehouse jobs are “susceptible to automation.”  That suggests that the warehouse boom may keep pace with automation for a time – new warehouses going up fast enough to compensate for jobs being automated – but then begin to decline. And once that decline begins, it will be fast and steep.  As Moenius noted, the bigger the employment base, the larger the drop. When 300,000 jobs drop by 75%, that could mean the loss of more than 200,000 workers in a very short period. There will be, Moenius emphasized – and apologies for his glumness – “substantial unemployment.” So which is it? Are warehouses the lifeblood of the Inland Empire, supplying it with badly needed employment to help it power through a recession and COVID? Or are they providing wages that barely keep pace with poverty and that may soon go away altogether?  The answer is both – and that should be cause for concern.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.