❓ Hon Wendy Duncan raises concerns about wild dog control in rangelands and proposes a barrier fence. Hon Kim Chance acknowledges support for a study and commits partial funding, contingent on matching funds from federal government or industry.
AnsweredQoN 482Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WILD DOG CONTROL
I again refer the minister to a motion passed unanimously at the recent Agriculture Protection Board pastoral conference regarding the inadequacy of current wild dog control in the rangelands and increased predation by wild dogs on sheep, cattle, goats and native animals. (1) Is the minister aware that the Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Pilbara and Kalgoorlie zone control authorities, along with the APB, the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association have all given support for a detailed study of the barrier fence proposal? (2) Will the minister commit funding for a feasibility study of measures, including the barrier fence proposal, to address the wild dog crisis in the rangelands? Hon KIM CHANCE
I again refer the minister to a motion passed unanimously at the recent Agriculture Protection Board pastoral conference regarding the inadequacy of current wild dog control in the rangelands and increased predation by wild dogs on sheep, cattle, goats and native animals. (1) Is the minister aware that the Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Pilbara and Kalgoorlie zone control authorities, along with the APB, the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association have all given support for a detailed study of the barrier fence proposal? (2) Will the minister commit funding for a feasibility study of measures, including the barrier fence proposal, to address the wild dog crisis in the rangelands? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(1) Is the minister aware that the Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Pilbara and Kalgoorlie zone control authorities, along with the APB, the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association have all given support for a detailed study of the barrier fence proposal? (2) Will the minister commit funding for a feasibility study of measures, including the barrier fence proposal, to address the wild dog crisis in the rangelands? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(2) Will the minister commit funding for a feasibility study of measures, including the barrier fence proposal, to address the wild dog crisis in the rangelands? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(1) Is the minister aware that the Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Pilbara and Kalgoorlie zone control authorities, along with the APB, the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association have all given support for a detailed study of the barrier fence proposal? (2) Will the minister commit funding for a feasibility study of measures, including the barrier fence proposal, to address the wild dog crisis in the rangelands? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(2) Will the minister commit funding for a feasibility study of measures, including the barrier fence proposal, to address the wild dog crisis in the rangelands? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
I thank Hon Wendy Duncan for advance notice of the question. (1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(1) Yes, I am aware of support from these organisations for a detailed study of a proposal for a biosecurity fence in the rangelands. The initial cost-benefit analysis of the pastoral biosecurity fence, which was carried out on behalf of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in 2006, is widely considered to be insufficiently detailed, and did not address all relevant issues. I have been advised that the Agriculture Protection Board and the State Barrier Fence Management Advisory Committee endorse a second, more comprehensive study being conducted. (2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
(2) Detailed consultation, analysis and planning led to completion of the August 2005 Western Australian wild dog management strategy, which clearly outlined what suite of measures need to be implemented or strengthened to markedly improve wild dog control. The 2007 Western Australian rangelands wild dog management policy outlines a collaborative approach to wild dog control that would markedly reduce wild dog problems in the rangelands; I did briefly point that out in answer to one of the member’s earlier questions. I think I referred to that report as the “Michelle Allan report”. I understand that a suitably qualified company is prepared to carry out the second study of the pastoral biosecurity fence proposal at an estimated cost of $50 000. I am pleased to advise that the state government, through the Department of Agriculture and Food and the APB, has committed to fund half that cost. I also understand that the Pastoralists and Graziers Association has unsuccessfully approached the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for matching funds. Once the state government’s funds are matched by either the federal government or industry beneficiaries of such a fence, arrangements will be made to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. I look forward to the completion of the second cost-benefit analysis and to receiving its findings.
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.