❓ A parliamentary question regarding the inadequacy of wild dog controls in WA rangelands and their impact on livestock and native mammals. The Minister acknowledges the problem and outlines existing strategies, but awaits further advice from relevant bodies.
AnsweredQoN 381Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
wild dog control
I refer the minister to a motion passed unanimously at the recent Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia pastoral conference regarding the inadequacy of current wild dog controls in the rangelands and the increased predation of wild dogs on sheep, cattle, goats and native mammals. (1) Has the minister received advice on this matter from the APB? (2) If so, what does the minister intend doing to address the wild dog problem? (3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer the minister to a motion passed unanimously at the recent Agriculture Protection Board of Western Australia pastoral conference regarding the inadequacy of current wild dog controls in the rangelands and the increased predation of wild dogs on sheep, cattle, goats and native mammals. (1) Has the minister received advice on this matter from the APB? (2) If so, what does the minister intend doing to address the wild dog problem? (3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(1) Has the minister received advice on this matter from the APB? (2) If so, what does the minister intend doing to address the wild dog problem? (3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(2) If so, what does the minister intend doing to address the wild dog problem? (3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(1) Has the minister received advice on this matter from the APB? (2) If so, what does the minister intend doing to address the wild dog problem? (3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(2) If so, what does the minister intend doing to address the wild dog problem? (3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(3) If not, will the minister request such advice and report back to this house on both the extent of the wild dog problem and the reasons that the APB has not provided advice on this matter previously? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for her questions. I have not seen the questions, but I think they are questions that I can reasonably be expected to give answers to. If the answers are not adequate, please ask them again. (1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
(1)-(3) The matter from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia has not been brought to my attention. Either the PGA has not written to me yet or the letter has gone straight through to the department for advice. This is a matter that I have discussed with the PGA and other bodies on a number of occasions over a number of years. It is also a matter that has been reviewed by the Agriculture Protection Board. Most recently, a major review of that activity was conducted by a committee headed by a member of the APB, Michelle Allen, and subsequent to that a range of changes have been put in place as to the way we achieve integrated dog management, in particular between sheep stations, adjoining cattle stations and adjoining unallocated crown land, and land that is managed by mining companies and Aboriginal corporations. Without going into too much detail, the essence of the strategy is to enforce the requirement for a higher level of dog control, consistent with the existence of a sheep station, on a cattle station adjoining, and on land of other descriptions. This is where we have experienced some of our major difficulties, because a dog problem on a cattle station is quite different from a dog problem on a sheep station. A dog problem on a sheep station simply cannot be tolerated in the way it can on a cattle station, on Aboriginal land that has no livestock on it, or on mining land. This is a profoundly difficult question. I am the first to concede that there is a serious dog problem, in particular in the eastern goldfields region, although it is more widespread than that. I look forward to receiving and considering the PGA’s advice, and most certainly discussing that with the APB. At this stage I am not quite ready to deal with that question, because we have not reached that point; however, I thank the member for raising it.
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.