❓ Hon. Murray Criddle raises concerns about wild dog populations impacting sheep farmers, requesting government funding for dog control. Hon. Kim Chance acknowledges the problem, details past management changes, and outlines increased funding and a review of the dog control program.
AnsweredQoN 701Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Wild dogs have reached plague proportions in the eastern rangeland of Western Australia. Producers want the State Government to provide funds for doggers to cull the packs. One station has reportedly lost 1 800 sheep to dogs. I am concerned that the dogs will soon enter the agricultural region. (1) What is the Government doing to facilitate a resolution to the problem? (2) Is a baiting and dogging program in place? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
(1) What is the Government doing to facilitate a resolution to the problem? (2) Is a baiting and dogging program in place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
(2) Is a baiting and dogging program in place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
(1) What is the Government doing to facilitate a resolution to the problem? (2) Is a baiting and dogging program in place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
(2) Is a baiting and dogging program in place? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for this question. I understand an article was published recently on this issue in Farm Weekly . This issue has been raised with me on a number of occasions by WAFarmers, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association and, most recently, in the form of a submission from the eastern goldfields, which was handed to me by Shire of Esperance Councillor Ian Mickel. I have met with the Agriculture Protection Board since my meeting with Councillor Mickel. We have been through a process that will provide some of the answers to the questions from the member. First, I must explain one or two things. It is true that there has been a build-up of dogs in a number of areas in the southern rangelands including the eastern rangelands, or the eastern goldfields. Numbers have increased most noticeably over the past three years, although it could have had a longer history than that. The build-up of dogs has resulted from a change in seasonal conditions and, in part - at least over the longer term - from changed station management practices. Not so long ago it was common for every station to have a permanently employed dogger, and sometimes seasonally employed doggers - between three and five - on an individual station. That practice has virtually ceased. Stations now very rarely employ doggers, partly because of economic hardship in the pastoral industry and partly because many of the stations, particularly those in the south-eastern rangelands, have changed from running sheep to cattle. On the changeover a management decision has been made that dogs do not pose the degree of risk to cattle that they do to sheep and, therefore, the dogs are someone else’s problem. That has proved to be a false economy. Calving losses from dogs can be as high as 15 per cent before the manager notices he has a problem. That information only recently came to our attention. Over the past 12 or 15 years, there has been a gradual change in the State’s management of dogs. There has been a switchover of reliance on doggers to a reliance on twice-yearly baiting in the pastoral zone, particularly that adjacent to the agricultural zone. To illustrate that point, the Kalgoorlie zone - I think it is zone 9 - permanently employed 12 doggers in 1992. Two years ago only one dogger worked in that area. That is reflective of a change in management practice. The question is now being asked - it may be a legitimate one - are we now over-relying on aerial baiting and not using doggers enough? A number of questions arise from this matter including whether dog baiting is as effective now as it was 12 years ago. The PRESIDENT: I am sure the leader does not want to raise additional questions but answer the ones that were posed. Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
Hon KIM CHANCE: I thought I was. Having outlined the questions that were asked, it is necessary to have a review of the dog program. The Agriculture Protection Board has already initiated a review that is being carried out under the chairmanship of Michelle Allen, an APB board member. With the extra commitment of state funding, the agriculture protection rate has just been lifted by 45 per cent in the forthcoming year, which is a significant rate increase approved by the APB. That rate increase is matched dollar for dollar by the State. I have already approved funds to match the increased rate. Therefore, the AP rate combined with the State’s dollar for dollar matching will take the feral animal control budget in the pastoral zone to $1.5 million a year off a background of about $770 000 a year. That is almost a doubling of the funds available for that purpose. In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
In the agricultural area an AP rate is not raised and all dog control is carried out at taxpayers’ expense. However, where farmers are prepared to establish jointly with the Department of Agriculture a declared animal group, we will match that dollar for dollar with the farmers. One or two of these groups are already working in the north-eastern wheatbelt. There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix it.
There has been a reduction in doggers. I have provided one example from the Kalgoorlie zone. I hope that Michelle Allen’s committee will be able to point to the wisdom of that and whether any long-term changes must be taken account of. I have certainly encouraged the APB and Michelle Allen in particular to be expansionary in the way they carry out this review. I want to know what the answers are. I recognise that this is a serious problem and I want to fix 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.