Lethal control does not dilute dingo DNA as expert criticises the practice of culling Australia’s dog

According to a new study, lethal control does not dilute the genetic purity of dingoes — a practice criticised as unethical by dingo expert Dr Bradley Smith. An 11-year collaborative study conducted by the Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development looked at the genes of six generations of dingoes in the southern rangelands of WA. The study results into dingo genes come as two young children were attacked by a dingo at Karijini National Park on Saturday. Park Rangers later put down that dingo. Dr Smith, a dingo behavioural researcher, criticised the practice of lethal control and said there were better methods for dealing with dingoes. “(The Pilbara) has a really important, beautiful population of dingoes, and it’s a shame that we are killing them so much even though they are a national native canid,” Dr Smith said. “We have to do our best to co-exist with dingoes, particularly in places like Karijini because people go to those places to see wildlife and dingoes. “And they just destroyed that dingo that bit those kids.” “We need to have more proactive management for livestock predation and at tourist areas.” The new research found that 69 per cent of dingoes had greater than 90 per cent dingo ancestry. The study also found that 98 per cent of the population had more than 80 per cent dingo ancestry. Study contributor Dr Malcolm Kennedy said the research challenged the idea that lethal control of dingoes led to increased hybridisation with domestic dogs. “It has been hypothesised that lethal control of dingoes can fracture packs leading to increased dingo-domestic dog hybridisation and in turn, hybridisation may result in changes in predation behaviour,” Mr Kennedy said. “There is currently no data to support these hypotheses, but these assertions are accompanied by calls for reducing lethal dingo control to preserve dingo genetic purity.” Lethal control of dingoes is undertaken to conserve native wildlife and reduce livestock losses. Mr Smith believed that some of the research methods in the DPIRD study were outdated and cited a different study that indicated hybridisation was even less common. “Using that old method that they did, you are more likely to detect hybridisation and non-purity than is actually happening,” he said. “So (the study is) overestimating.” National Wild Dog Action Plan coordinator Greg Misfud said that although the studied area did not look at the Pilbara, he assumed the results would be the same. “The situation in the Pilbara would be very similar to that of the southern rangelands because there are even fewer domestic dogs in the landscape, and the properties up there are much larger,” Mr Misfud said. “From that perspective, lethal control still wouldn’t lead to hybridisation with domestic dogs simply because there are not too many dogs out there for them to mate with.” Mr Kennedy said the study only looked at WA dingoes, so assuming the findings applied to the whole country would be wrong. “It would be disingenuous to assume these results apply in other regions of Australia,” Mr Kennedy said. However, baiting has been occurring in the WA southern rangelands for at least 40 years, and the population remains at 98 per cent dingo purity,” Mr Kennedy said. The CSIRO published the study.