❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses concerns about wild dogs, camels, and feral animals impacting the pastoral industry, questioning the effectiveness of current control methods and the potential need for a barrier fence. The Minister's response acknowledges the issues but emphasizes shared responsibility and existing support mechanisms.
AnsweredQoN 3454Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(a) does the Minister agree that the wild dog and camel ingression problem into pastoral Western Australia is occurring at an alarming rate and that a failure of current control methods to halt wild dog attacks on the pastoral industry will lead to the decimation of the industry;
(i) if no to (a) why not;
(b) does the Minister agree that there is widespread industry support for a Pastoral Barrier fence like the one in South Australia over and above the cost benefit analysis already paid for by industry, ie Peggs Report;
(i) if no to (3) why not;
(c) does the Minister agree that as the owners of leasehold properties, it is the government’s sole responsibility to fund a study for a pastoral fence barrier;
(i) if no to (5) why not;
(d) how does the Minister intend to deal with a rangeland full of feral animals and weeds if pastoralists are not fostered given the Department of Environment and Conservation is already struggling to manage lands;
(e) can the Minister explain why Zone Control Authority and Biosecurity Groups’ unpaid members should continue to support their existence if they apparently have little or no credibility;
(f) are the Zone Control Authority’s and Biosecurity Groups’ viewed as being important to the Minister;
(i) if no to (f) why not;
(ii) if yes to (f) why;
(g) what is the purpose of the Zone Control Authority and Biosecurity Groups’;
(h) did the joint sitting on or about September 2007 of the Agricultural Protection Board and State Barrier Fence Committee approve or recommend the need for a detailed feasibility study into the need for a barrier fence to protect pastoral areas;
(i) if yes to (h) what specifically did they or recommend;
(i) will the Minister make the resources available to fully fund a feasibility study which also includes a cost benefit analysis similar to that proposed for the state barrier fence to wild dog standard;
(i) If no to (i) why not; and
(j) will The Minister advise who was responsible for designing and implementing the buffer zone concept for pastoral areas?
(i) if no to (a) why not;
(b) does the Minister agree that there is widespread industry support for a Pastoral Barrier fence like the one in South Australia over and above the cost benefit analysis already paid for by industry, ie Peggs Report;
(i) if no to (3) why not;
(c) does the Minister agree that as the owners of leasehold properties, it is the government’s sole responsibility to fund a study for a pastoral fence barrier;
(i) if no to (5) why not;
(d) how does the Minister intend to deal with a rangeland full of feral animals and weeds if pastoralists are not fostered given the Department of Environment and Conservation is already struggling to manage lands;
(e) can the Minister explain why Zone Control Authority and Biosecurity Groups’ unpaid members should continue to support their existence if they apparently have little or no credibility;
(f) are the Zone Control Authority’s and Biosecurity Groups’ viewed as being important to the Minister;
(i) if no to (f) why not;
(ii) if yes to (f) why;
(g) what is the purpose of the Zone Control Authority and Biosecurity Groups’;
(h) did the joint sitting on or about September 2007 of the Agricultural Protection Board and State Barrier Fence Committee approve or recommend the need for a detailed feasibility study into the need for a barrier fence to protect pastoral areas;
(i) if yes to (h) what specifically did they or recommend;
(i) will the Minister make the resources available to fully fund a feasibility study which also includes a cost benefit analysis similar to that proposed for the state barrier fence to wild dog standard;
(i) If no to (i) why not; and
(j) will The Minister advise who was responsible for designing and implementing the buffer zone concept for pastoral areas?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 August 2008
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Agriculture and Food
Response time
44 days
(a) I acknowledge that wild dogs are a serious concern in the pastoral and agricultural zones of WA and that there are varied reasons for this. Historically wild dogs have been controlled by pastoralists and their employees and many stations once had large numbers of staff capable of trapping/poisoning wild dogs. However over more recent years economic pressures on pastoral businesses have seen a marked reduction in numbers of people available to control wild dogs. Whilst coordinated baiting campaigns and employment of doggers continues through Zone Control Authorities (ZCAs) there has been a dramatic decrease in individual control work and this has contributed to an increase in wild dog numbers. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has responsibility for controlling wild dogs on the Conservation Estate and Unallocated Crown Land and works with ZCAs in their planning and delivery of baits on land neighbouring pastoral leases.
The Rangelands Wild Dog Management Policy was developed in consultation with pastoral industry representatives and has been endorsed by all five rangeland ZCAs. This policy is aimed at ensuring all landholders are aware of and meet their responsibilities in relation to wild dog management and that management of the problem is carried out in a coordinated way across all land tenures.
I have received reports of camels impacting on pastoral leases in areas adjacent to large tracts of Unallocated Crown Land to the east of the pastoral area. Once again DEC has responsibility for camels on the Conservation Estate and Unallocated Crown Land. The Government provides funding to assist pastoral landholders to carry out coordinated strategic control of feral horses, camels and donkeys as well as wild dogs on pastoral land.
(b) I do not agree that it has been demonstrated that there is widespread industry support to build a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence. It seems that promoters of the Pastoral Biosecurity Fence regard it as a high returning investment provided that they do not have to make any of that investment. No one has addressed the issue of the many wild dogs that would remain on the inside of such a fence. In fact it is commonly quoted that the Queensland wild dog fence now separates two populations of wild dogs as there has not been the effort required to reduce numbers of wild dogs on the "inside" of their fence.
(c) It is not the sole responsibility of the State Government to fund a feasibility study to investigate the benefit-cost of building a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence. The State Government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA), will fund 50% of the estimated cost of $50,000, based on a recent cost-benefit analysis of the State Barrier Fence. The Federal Government has been approached via the Pastoralists and Grazier's Association, however, I believe it has been advised to try for funding through Caring for our Country program. The other option is for industry beneficiaries of the Pastoral Biosecurity Fence to match the State Government's commitment.
(d) All landholders/managers have responsibility for managing declared weeds and animals on their properties. Pastoralists pay into the Declared Plant and Animals Control Fund (DPACF). The State Government matches pastoralist's contributions. The ZCAs then utilise this money to carry out coordinated control programs across pastoral land. If pastoralists decide to raise their rate to achieve better control of wild dogs etc. then the State Government will continue to match this $/$.
(e) Support for rangeland ZCAs is generally high amongst pastoral landholders. The five rangeland ZCAs control the use of over $2 million of DPACF funds. It is in the interests of all pastoralists that the ZCAs run effectively to ensure that these funds are used appropriately. It is open to ZCAs to meet the costs of pastoralists' involvement.
(f) Absolutely. This is a most effective system for management of declared plants and animals in the pastoral region. This system allows representatives of local landholders to have control over the use of landholder and Government funds allocated for the management of regional pest issues.
(g) The role of ZCAs is to:
· identify local priority pest issues which require coordinated management for allocation of ZCA funds.
· advise the Agriculture Protection Board (APB) on the formulation of DPACF budgets in pastoral zones.
· monitor service delivery throughout the zone in respect of the management of declared plants and animals, and report to the Board;
· advise the Board on issues of concern within the zone and on policies and strategies appropriate to the zone;
· ensure that the Board receives a representative snapshot of the views of stakeholders within the zone;
· help raise the awareness of stakeholders within the zone in respect of agricultural protection and biosecurity issues;
(h) The State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee advised the APB that they endorse the undertaking of a feasibility study, based on specific Terms of Reference to investigate the cost-benefit of wild dog control options, including building and maintaining a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence encompassing various parts of the Southern Rangelands, and that the APB recommend to me that such a study be undertaken and that the State Government match Federal Government funds to undertake an external and independent study on a 50/50 basis.
The APB advised me that it endorsed a cost-benefit analysis be conducted on the feasibility of a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence, with funding to be 50% sourced from the three Southern Rangelands ZCAs with matching funds being met by the Australian Government. Since then I have advised the APB that the State Government, through DAFWA, will contribute 50% of the cost of the analysis which is estimated to be approximately $50,000. Industry stakeholders still need to seek the other 50% of the cost.
(i) As mentioned already, it is not the sole responsibility of the State Government to fund a cost-benefit analysis of building and maintaining a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence. The Government, through DAFWA will contribute 50% of a study as long as it is matched by other interests up to a combined total of $50,000.
(j) The Rangelands Wild Dog Management Policy was developed by the APB and DAFWA in consultation with pastoral landholders and rangeland ZCAs.
The responsibility for wild dog control, or any other declared species for that matter, is the responsibility of the land owner/manager. The implementation of the buffer zone concept lies with pastoralists and DEC where land that it manages is adjacent to pastoral leases. DAFWA manufactures low?cost wild dog baits, provides the necessary training to landholders to ensure they have the skills to undertake wild dog control, and is responsible for the enforcement of compliance with the policy.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
The Rangelands Wild Dog Management Policy was developed in consultation with pastoral industry representatives and has been endorsed by all five rangeland ZCAs. This policy is aimed at ensuring all landholders are aware of and meet their responsibilities in relation to wild dog management and that management of the problem is carried out in a coordinated way across all land tenures.
I have received reports of camels impacting on pastoral leases in areas adjacent to large tracts of Unallocated Crown Land to the east of the pastoral area. Once again DEC has responsibility for camels on the Conservation Estate and Unallocated Crown Land. The Government provides funding to assist pastoral landholders to carry out coordinated strategic control of feral horses, camels and donkeys as well as wild dogs on pastoral land.
(b) I do not agree that it has been demonstrated that there is widespread industry support to build a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence. It seems that promoters of the Pastoral Biosecurity Fence regard it as a high returning investment provided that they do not have to make any of that investment. No one has addressed the issue of the many wild dogs that would remain on the inside of such a fence. In fact it is commonly quoted that the Queensland wild dog fence now separates two populations of wild dogs as there has not been the effort required to reduce numbers of wild dogs on the "inside" of their fence.
(c) It is not the sole responsibility of the State Government to fund a feasibility study to investigate the benefit-cost of building a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence. The State Government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA), will fund 50% of the estimated cost of $50,000, based on a recent cost-benefit analysis of the State Barrier Fence. The Federal Government has been approached via the Pastoralists and Grazier's Association, however, I believe it has been advised to try for funding through Caring for our Country program. The other option is for industry beneficiaries of the Pastoral Biosecurity Fence to match the State Government's commitment.
(d) All landholders/managers have responsibility for managing declared weeds and animals on their properties. Pastoralists pay into the Declared Plant and Animals Control Fund (DPACF). The State Government matches pastoralist's contributions. The ZCAs then utilise this money to carry out coordinated control programs across pastoral land. If pastoralists decide to raise their rate to achieve better control of wild dogs etc. then the State Government will continue to match this $/$.
(e) Support for rangeland ZCAs is generally high amongst pastoral landholders. The five rangeland ZCAs control the use of over $2 million of DPACF funds. It is in the interests of all pastoralists that the ZCAs run effectively to ensure that these funds are used appropriately. It is open to ZCAs to meet the costs of pastoralists' involvement.
(f) Absolutely. This is a most effective system for management of declared plants and animals in the pastoral region. This system allows representatives of local landholders to have control over the use of landholder and Government funds allocated for the management of regional pest issues.
(g) The role of ZCAs is to:
· identify local priority pest issues which require coordinated management for allocation of ZCA funds.
· advise the Agriculture Protection Board (APB) on the formulation of DPACF budgets in pastoral zones.
· monitor service delivery throughout the zone in respect of the management of declared plants and animals, and report to the Board;
· advise the Board on issues of concern within the zone and on policies and strategies appropriate to the zone;
· ensure that the Board receives a representative snapshot of the views of stakeholders within the zone;
· help raise the awareness of stakeholders within the zone in respect of agricultural protection and biosecurity issues;
(h) The State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee advised the APB that they endorse the undertaking of a feasibility study, based on specific Terms of Reference to investigate the cost-benefit of wild dog control options, including building and maintaining a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence encompassing various parts of the Southern Rangelands, and that the APB recommend to me that such a study be undertaken and that the State Government match Federal Government funds to undertake an external and independent study on a 50/50 basis.
The APB advised me that it endorsed a cost-benefit analysis be conducted on the feasibility of a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence, with funding to be 50% sourced from the three Southern Rangelands ZCAs with matching funds being met by the Australian Government. Since then I have advised the APB that the State Government, through DAFWA, will contribute 50% of the cost of the analysis which is estimated to be approximately $50,000. Industry stakeholders still need to seek the other 50% of the cost.
(i) As mentioned already, it is not the sole responsibility of the State Government to fund a cost-benefit analysis of building and maintaining a Pastoral Biosecurity Fence. The Government, through DAFWA will contribute 50% of a study as long as it is matched by other interests up to a combined total of $50,000.
(j) The Rangelands Wild Dog Management Policy was developed by the APB and DAFWA in consultation with pastoral landholders and rangeland ZCAs.
The responsibility for wild dog control, or any other declared species for that matter, is the responsibility of the land owner/manager. The implementation of the buffer zone concept lies with pastoralists and DEC where land that it manages is adjacent to pastoral leases. DAFWA manufactures low?cost wild dog baits, provides the necessary training to landholders to ensure they have the skills to undertake wild dog control, and is responsible for the enforcement of compliance with the policy.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.