Dingo Working Group

Position statements:

Why Conserve The Australian Dingo?

Why Conserve The Wild New Guinea Dingo? 

It is the opinion of the IUCN Canid Specialist Group (CSG) that dingoes/NGSD are an evolutionarily significant unit of wild canid closely related to domestic dogs.

The taxonomic name used for dingoes in the scientific literature continues to be debated, with Canis dingo, Canis lupus dingo, Canis hallstromi, Canis dingo hallstromi and Canis familiaris, C. familiaris (dingo), in current use (Crowther et al., 2014; Jackson et al., 2020; Koler-Matznick et al., 2004; Kreplins et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2019). Disagreement stems from uncertainty about the evolutionary history and domestication status of the lineage. Some regard the dingo is an ancient breed ultimately derived from early domestic dogs (Jackson et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2017) whilst others argue that dingoes did not originate from a domesticated lineage (Ballard & Wilson, 2019; Cairns, 2021; Crowther et al., 2014; Shipman, 2021; Smith et al., 2019). Whilst Australian and New Guinea dingoes were previously considered separate lineages, molecular evidence has confirmed their close relationship and collective distinctiveness from modern domestic dogs (Surbakti et al 2020).

It is not appropriate to refer to dingoes/NGSD as a breed or feral, they are wild canids. The IUCN CSG expects that ongoing scientific research will resolve uncertainty about the status of dingoes/NGSD/HWD.

1. Information on the wild canids of Papua New Guinea and south-east Asia, and their genetic relationships with Australian dingoes.

Dingoes are the most ancient form of dog, having expanded their range from Asia through the islands of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea to Australia several thousand years ago. Complex genetic relationships between ancient and modern canids in these regions over this time affect the perceived status and conservation value of dingoes. A greater understanding of these relationships will assist their conservation and management across their extended range.

2. Information on geographic boundaries of any evolutionarily significant dingo populations and identification of regional hotspots where the dingo populations have limited domestic dog introgression.

Ongoing genetic mixing between dingoes and modern dogs – often referred to as hybridisation – threatens the loss of valuable genetic diversity within dingoes. Australian dingoes are often thought of as having a single genetic identity, but modern genetic data indicates this is not the case. Identifying regions of with distinct evolutionary lineages can assist with determining management actions that have the capacity to preserve these populations against factors that may threaten them. It is also important to identify local dingo populations which have limited (or zero) domestic dog ancestry.

3. Information on effects of dingo management on dispersal and hybridisation.

Dingoes are present across ~85% of the Australian continent and can cause substantial damage to livestock, which leads to broad scale lethal control of dingoes in many areas. Dingo control may increase intraspecific interactions and act as a catalyst for the loss of valuable genetic diversity. These issues remain poorly understood, but they are important to help understand the effects of common dingo management practices on dingo conservation values.

4. Information on non-numerical effects of dingo management on populations of dingoes and other fauna.

Dingo abundance and distribution is typically resilient to most contemporary forms of dingo control over time, but there remains some uncertainty about the effects of dingo control on their ecological function, population genetics and the potential cascading effects this may have for other fauna and flora. More information on these processes may assist with developing dingo management strategies with the potential to conserve their ecological values.

5. Broadening the knowledge base about available dingo management tools, encouraging the use of non-lethal tools where appropriate.

A wide variety of potential tools exist to manage the risks dingoes pose to livestock and threatened fauna, but managers have typically relied on just a small number of these tools, including poisoning, trapping, shooting, and exclusion fencing. Adoption of the many other available tools is hampered by a lack of reliable information on their effectiveness. With increasing public pressure to prioritise non-lethal control of dingoes, obtaining a greater understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of non-lethal tools may assist with the adoption of these tools in appropriate places.

Dingoes are one of the most studied animals in Australia, and wide variety of resources are available on dingo biology, ecology, conservation and management – too many to list here. Some of these resources are available by clicking on the links associated with each Dingo Working Group member (above), or by reading the following books:

• Breckwoldt, R. (1988). 'A very elegant animal: the dingo.' (Angus and Robertson: Sydney)
  Corbett, L.K. (2001). 'The dingo in Australia and Asia.' (J.B. Books, South Australia: Marleston)
  Dickman, C.R., Lunney, D. (2001). 'A symposium on the dingo.' (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Mosman)
• Fleming, P., Corbett, L., Harden, R. , Thomson, P. (Ed. M Bomford) (2001). 'Managing the impacts of dingoes and other wild dogs.' (Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra)
• Fox, M. W. (2009). ‘The Wild Canids: Their Systematics, Behavioral Ecology and Evolution.’ (Dogwise publishing: Wenatchee, Washington, USA)
• Koler-Matznick, J. (2016). ‘Dawn of the dog: The genesis of a natural species.’ (Cynology Press, Central Point, Oregon, USA)
• Purcell, B.V. (2010). 'Dingo. Australian Natural History Series.' (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood)
  Smith, B. (2015). 'The dingo debate: origins, behaviour and conservation.' (CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, Victoria)

Please find selected Dingo Projects here.

Kylie Cairns – University of New South Wales, Australia (Co-chair) – k.cairns@unsw.edu.au

(https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=36136578000)

Guy Ballard – New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Australia

(https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=25937120200)

Linda Behrendorff – Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia

(https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57188688753)

Rose Singadan – University of Papua New Guinea, Papua New Guinea

(https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7801618209)

Bradley Smith – Central Queensland University, Australia

(https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55722560900)

Lisa Wolf – New Guinea Highland Wild Dog Foundation, USA

(https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57209774402)