❓ Hon John Fischer asks about the Agriculture Protection Board's (APB) wild dog control program, focusing on the lack of a 'silver bullet' solution and the challenges faced by pastoralists, including public liability and workers compensation issues. Hon Kim Chance acknowledges the problem, explains the complexities, and outlines steps being taken to address it.
AnsweredQoN 117Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the four main conclusions reached by the panel of pastoral and agricultural producers commissioned by the Agriculture Protection Board to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the wild dog control program in Western Australia. Conclusion No 2 indicates that despite hopes and assertions to the contrary there is no silver bullet or overnight quick fix to address the high number of wild dogs observed across a wide section of Western Australia’s pastoral and agricultural areas. (1) Has the APB considered that without an initial silver bullet being injected by the Government, given the very desperate situation, pastoralists will not remain in some areas to continue a wild dog eradication program? (2) Is the minister aware of the public liability and workers compensation problems being experienced by local pastoral groups in the employment of doggers? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
(1) Has the APB considered that without an initial silver bullet being injected by the Government, given the very desperate situation, pastoralists will not remain in some areas to continue a wild dog eradication program? (2) Is the minister aware of the public liability and workers compensation problems being experienced by local pastoral groups in the employment of doggers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
(2) Is the minister aware of the public liability and workers compensation problems being experienced by local pastoral groups in the employment of doggers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
(1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found -
Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
(1) Has the APB considered that without an initial silver bullet being injected by the Government, given the very desperate situation, pastoralists will not remain in some areas to continue a wild dog eradication program? (2) Is the minister aware of the public liability and workers compensation problems being experienced by local pastoral groups in the employment of doggers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
(2) Is the minister aware of the public liability and workers compensation problems being experienced by local pastoral groups in the employment of doggers? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
(1)-(2) The panel’s report on this issue came to the only conclusion possible. We would all love to think that for every problem that confronts people, society and industry there is a silver-bullet solution. The panel found that there is not a simple solution to this problem. It came to that conclusion based on consideration of the last time we experienced a cycle of wild dog activity of this nature about 30 years ago. Wild dog activity builds up cyclically, particularly after a run of good years in the Western Desert. Dogs clearly employ much more free-ranging habits than they used to. It is not that the dogs have changed their habits; we are talking about different animals. One of the challenges for the APB has been that the tools available to it and the legislation under which it operates are all predicated around the wild dog problem being related to dingoes. Clearly, the current problem has little, if anything, to do with dingoes. The problem involves feral dogs, including German shepherds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, blue heelers and any other mixed or fairly dangerous animal that we can think of. They are not wild dogs or dingoes; they have been brought into the area by humans and are coming out of towns and marauding livestock on stations. The problems are different from those contemplated when the legislation was originally drafted. Sometimes wild dogs contain some infusion of dingo. However, very often a pack of dogs will be easily recognisable domestic dogs, some of which still live with their owners in either prospectors’ camps, Aboriginal communities or the local town. Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found - The PRESIDENT: I trust the minister will succinctly answer the question. Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
Solutions have been identified in the report. Although the panel says that there is no silver-bullet solution, it does not say that there is no solution. The panel has clearly outlined, and the Agriculture Protection Board has quite promptly put in place, an integrated management structure. I will give one example of the issues that the panel found -
Hon KIM CHANCE: Indeed. However, it is a broad question. One of the findings of the panel was that there has been an over-reliance on the aerial baiting program. Indeed, the aerial baiting program has been treated as a silver bullet. The fact is that when we have looked at these issues, we have found that where the baiting is carried out and where the dogs are located are two entirely different places. There has not been a sufficient engagement between the landholders and the APB on these matters. I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
I certainly agree that this is a serious problem, and we are working hard to find an answer to it. Clearly, the decision some 12 years ago to start running down the number of doggers working in the area was the wrong decision. I believe we are on the way to fixing that. The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
The second part of the question relates to public liability. The member may or may not have mentioned workers compensation. However, that is another part of the issue. I indicated in my most recent meeting with pastoralists at Leinster Downs that I see that as being a logical role for the Department of Agriculture to take on on behalf of the declared animal groups.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.