Farmers have an "obligation" to ensure that they do not kill Victoria's endangered dingoes with 1080 poison, according to Agriculture Minister Ros Spence and her officials.
Speaking during a hearing with the Victorian Parliament's Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on Friday, Ms Spence warned that there were just 40 dingoes left in the state's northwest.
She said these dingoes needed protection and that private landowners must exhaust non-lethal methods of control.
Ms Spence was pushed by members of the committee, including Danny O'Brien MP and Bev McArthur MP, regarding her department's position on wild dog and dingo control.
Despite the lack of new funding for wild dog control in the recent state budget, Ms Spence was adamant that the wild dog control program was not scrapped and said it would continue to be funded with existing resources.
The Minister also laid out her view on Victoria's dingo population.
"There's actually been a number of papers developed in relation to dingo research and there is consistency amongst them that the number of dingoes is very, very low in the northwest of the state, potentially as low as 40 dingoes," she said.
"Secondly, there's the classification of whether it is a wild dog or dingo.
"There are more indications now that there isn't as much dingo-dog hybridisation as was previously thought."
Ms Spence also refuted claims that dingoes were killing more and more livestock and said predation numbers showed that dingoes killed less livestock within the northwest of the state than they killed in the northeast of the state.
She said dingoes had killed between 10 and 68 livestock each year over the last 10 years in the northwest.
However, farmers in northwest Victoria, including Lawloit sheep farmer Alan Bennett, have been struggling to control wild dogs since the dingo unprotection order was lifted in their area in March.
Despite more than 30 of his sheep being killed by wild dogs in recent weeks, Mr Bennett was unable to obtain a wild dog control permit.
Bev McArthur MP said this stock mauling began almost immediately after the wild dog management zone was revoked.
"No adjacent producer has been able to secure an Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW) permit as dingoes are now protected," she said.
"Will the Minister make those permits available?"
Minister Spence said making the permits available was not her decision.
"That's for the office of the conservation regulator who's independent office will make those determinations," she said.
Ms Spence said she was aware of Mr Bennett's case but said he was the only farmer in the area to lodge an application for an ATCW permit.
"That is the only application that has been made so if adjoining land holders are suggesting to you that they haven't been able to seek a permit, I suggest that they work with the department, work with the regulator, because at this stage there hasn't been any further applications," she said.
Minister Spence said it was less likely that farmers in the northwest would be able to obtain a wild dog control permit, due to the low level of dingoes in the area.
She said the conservation regulator had to make a "judgement call" on balance given the "very high conservation concerns" with the dingoes.
She said the regulator needed to be balanced and needed to take into account the extent of predation on livestock and if non-lethal control measures had been "exhausted".
"Given there's only 40 dingoes you believe left in the northwest, it's highly unlikely then that any permits would be issued?," Danny O'Brien MP asked.
"I think it would be a much lower likelihood than in other areas, given the high conservation issues," Ms Spence said.
Poisoning
Ms McArthur also asked about the use of 1080 poison to control wild dogs.
The poison, also known as sodium fluoroacetate, was a highly toxic pesticide that was used to control introduced pest animals such as foxes, rabbits, cats, feral pigs and wild dogs.
Stock & Land understands that some state forest management staff have become wary of using 1080 over their fears they could be prosecuted for inadvertently killing the protected dingo.
"Has 1080 been banned in the northwest of the state to protect dingoes?," Ms McArthur asked.
Agriculture Victoria acting chief executive Dougal Purcell said as a threatened species, it was "illegal to kill a dingo and therefore the utilisation of 1080 to control dingoes is not allowed".
"To be very clear, with the intent to kill a dingo, it shouldn't be used," he said.
"The onus is on the landowner to ensure that they do not seek to kill a dingo."
When asked if state forest staff had stopped using 1080 out of fear of killing dingoes, Mr Purcell said "what happens in state forests is a matter for state forests".
Mr O'Brien quizzed the Minister and department officials on this further.
He asked if farmers were using 1080 to control foxes but accidentally killed a dingo, what penalty would apply?
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action secretary John Bradley outlined his department's position.
"Where a farmer was potentially seeking to kill a protected animal like the dingo without the appropriate authority, then there would be penalties applied underneath the wildlife act," he said.
"We're making sure [farmers are] aware of the support we can provide for non lethal measures and other forms of support in the local area."
He said farmers had an "obligation" to not use 1080 for dingo control.
Mr O'Brien asked if farmers in the northwest dingo unprotection zone accidentally killed a dingo while baiting foxes with 1080, would they have a defence?
"Those circumstances are considered in the case of the conservation regulator," Mr Bradley explained.
"They would go through an appropriate assessment of the circumstances and the facts of that situation."
When it came to northeast Victoria, and consideration of the area's protection of dingoes, Ms Spence said a decision would be made in October, one she could not "pre-empt".
