government of their duty of care and service expectations. Other jurisdictions deliver control primarily through private sector provision. On this public delivery model, Victoria has been able to construct a detailed system and methodology to describe, plan, execute and report on control activities on public and private land. At the control level, the Victorian Wild Dog Control Program comprises mainly ground baiting and trapping, sometimes complemented by aerial baiting and shooting. Trapping is the primary reactive control activity in terms of expenditure and labour force effort. However, in terms of the total nights during a year for which a ground bait or trap is operational, baiting remains the core proactive tool and the major control measure undertaken by the program. The two major reasons that baiting has assumed dominance over trapping is ground baits are quicker to deploy and longer time lapses between checks reduce the need for manual input. As a result of this position, the desired outcomes for wild dog control, determined either by baiting or trapping, should be ultimately clarified as a matter of policy development. Additionally there is a benefit in DEDJTR clarifying the obligations of government in undertaking reasonable wild dog control measures in the context of the current service offer, or interpretation by government of their duty of care and service expectations. The level of control reasonably required by legislation should be clarified as a matter of policy development as should the subsequent service definition of operational responses to landholder reporting. These clarifications should inform the strategic direction of the Wild Dog Control Program. Assess whether the tools, techniques and strategies are being used efficiently and effectively in Victoria to protect livestock and to build the capacity of the private sector to plan, lead and deliver local approaches to wild dog management on private land. Consistent with the Victorian Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs 2014-2019, effectively reducing the impacts of wild dogs requires a strategic, proactive and cost effective approach whereby private and public land managers work together and utilise all available management practices including baiting, trapping, shooting, exclusion fencing and good on-farm husbandry practices. Our evaluation has primarily focused on lethal measures, such as baiting and trapping, as it has not been possible to examine the uptake and effectiveness of non-lethal measures and other lethal measures such as shooting due to a lack of data. There has been a substantial increase in baiting as a control activity due to a shift in program focus over the last three years from reactive public service provision toward more proactive public service provision and improved community engagement.
government of their duty of care and service expectations. Other jurisdictions deliver control primarily through private sector provision. On this public delivery model, Victoria has been able to construct a detailed system and methodology to describe, plan, execute and report on control activities on public and private land. At the control level, the Victorian Wild Dog Control Program comprises mainly ground baiting and trapping, sometimes complemented by aerial baiting and shooting. Trapping is the primary reactive control activity in terms of expenditure and labour force effort. However, in terms of the total nights during a year for which a ground bait or trap is operational, baiting remains the core proactive tool and the major control measure undertaken by the program. The two major reasons that baiting has assumed dominance over trapping is ground baits are quicker to deploy and longer time lapses between checks reduce the need for manual input. As a result of this position, the desired outcomes for wild dog control, determined either by baiting or trapping, should be ultimately clarified as a matter of policy development. Additionally there is a benefit in DEDJTR clarifying the obligations of government in undertaking reasonable wild dog control measures in the context of the current service offer, or interpretation by government of their duty of care and service expectations. The level of control reasonably required by legislation should be clarified as a matter of policy development as should the subsequent service definition of operational responses to landholder reporting. These clarifications should inform the strategic direction of the Wild Dog Control Program. Assess whether the tools, techniques and strategies are being used efficiently and effectively in Victoria to protect livestock and to build the capacity of the private sector to plan, lead and deliver local approaches to wild dog management on private land. Consistent with the Victorian Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs 2014-2019, effectively reducing the impacts of wild dogs requires a strategic, proactive and cost effective approach whereby private and public land managers work together and utilise all available management practices including baiting, trapping, shooting, exclusion fencing and good on-farm husbandry practices. Our evaluation has primarily focused on lethal measures, such as baiting and trapping, as it has not been possible to examine the uptake and effectiveness of non-lethal measures and other lethal measures such as shooting due to a lack of data. There has been a substantial increase in baiting as a control activity due to a shift in program focus over the last three years from reactive public service provision toward more proactive public service provision and improved community engagement.
Wild-dog-evaluation-report-2Accessible.docx