Protecting dingoes must not leave farmers powerless

South Australian livestock producers face a stark prospect: their long-standing right to control wild dogs could be curtailed if the federal government declares the Wilkerr dingo population, on the border with Victoria, as endangered. The suggestion has caused alarm among farmers who rely on lethal control as a defence against livestock losses. This is not a simple conservation-versus-production story; it is about how policy balances the survival of a native animal with the livelihoods and safety of rural communities. Dingoes are complicated animals in Australian landscapes. In some places they are valued as an apex predator that can help control pests; in others, where wild dogs and hybrids attack sheep and calves, they are seen as a direct threat to producers’ income and wellbeing. The proposed endangered listing at the Wilkerr site would bring protections that could limit lethal control options, and farmers rightly fear the immediate local consequences: unchecked wild-dog numbers, elevated predation, and mounting financial and emotional stress for rural households. Conservation is essential, and the idea of protecting a dingo population on ecological grounds has merit. But good policy must be multidimensional. It must recognise the real costs borne by the people living alongside protected species and provide workable alternatives. That means robust compensation mechanisms, targeted support for non-lethal management where effective, and investment in research and on-the-ground solutions that reduce conflict. Simply removing a community’s available tools without offering credible substitutes is a recipe for resentment and non-compliance. The federal government’s role should be to convene a genuinely consultative process — one that trusts farmers’ local knowledge as much as it weighs scientific advice. Risk‑sharing arrangements could be financed to offset losses where protections are imposed. Practical measures, such as better fencing, guardian animals and coordinated control programs across land tenures, deserve priority funding and rigorous evaluation before lethal options are withdrawn wholesale. Above all, declarations of endangered status must be accompanied by clear, transparent management plans that spell out how protected populations will be monitored and how human-wildlife conflict will be mitigated. Without those plans, the move will feel like an imposition rather than a partnership. Rural communities are not obstacles to conservation; they are essential partners. If Australia wants to protect native animals while also maintaining productive agriculture, policy must be fair, informed and funded. That means listening to farmers, compensating fairly when protections bite, and committing to practical, evidence-based solutions that work for both biodiversity and the people who depend on the land.