Download Key Threatening Process Nomination Form

Key Threatening Process Nomination Form
for amending the list of key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
2014/2015 Nomination Period
This nomination form is designed to assist in the preparation of nominations of threatening processes consistent with
the Regulations and EPBC Act. The listing of a key threatening process under the EPBC Act is designed to prevent native
species or ecological communities from becoming threatened or prevent threatened species and ecological communities
from becoming more threatened.
Many processes that occur in the landscape are, or could be, threatening processes, however priority for listing will be
directed to key threatening processes, those factors that most threaten biodiversity at national scale.
For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. If there is
insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this
in your nomination under the relevant question.
Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.
If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).
Important notes for completing this form

Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Threatened Species Scientific
Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility
against the EPBC Act criteria for listing.

Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form.

The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in
support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details
(including state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form.

Keep in mind the relevance of your answers to the listing criteria.

It is particularly important that the nomination addresses the impact of the threatening process across its national
extent.

Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity.

Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy
documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination).

Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed.

Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations will not proceed – see Division 7.2 of the EPBC Regulations
2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). As noted under sub-regulation 7.06(2), if information is
not available for a particular question please state this in your answer.
Nominated key threatening process
1.
NAME OF KEY THREATENING PROCESS
The cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo (including wild
dogs and dingo cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes.
2.
CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING
Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. The process could be eligible under one or all three
criteria.
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological
Criterion A
community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation
dependent.
3.
Criterion B
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or
ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a
higher degree of endangerment.
Criterion C
Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened
species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened
ecological communities.
CONSERVATION THEME:
Is the current conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’
relevant to this key threatening process? If so, explain how.
Yes. Pastoralists and conservation agencies lethally control dingoes across Australia to reduce, limit
or remove the threat they pose to livestock production. Much research also has shown that
threatened species benefit from the presence of dingoes in the landscape. Saving livestock from
predation by dingoes and saving threatened Australian species from predation by recently
introduced predators (feral cats and red foxes) and competition from introduced herbivores
(European rabbits) are therefore conflicting natural resource management objectives. Listing loss or
removal of the mammalian predator the dingo as a key threatening process will aid objectives of
species programs inside protected areas and improve livestock management outside of protected
areas. As outlined in the nomination, the loss or removal of dingoes from Australian landscapes
impacts on a number of already listed threatened species, in addition to those species which may
benefit from protection of dingoes, or suffer greater population declines if the threat is not abated.
Description of the key threatening process
4.
DESCRIPTION
Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to:
a. its biological and non-biological components;
b. the processes by which those components interact (if known).
An overwhelming amount of research around the globe shows that the loss or removal of predators
causes the health of ecosystems/landscapes to decline (Ripple et al 2013). In all cases, predators
are managed to reduce competition with economic objectives and/or to save human lives.
Nominating ‘The cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo
(including wild dogs and dingo cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes’ is distinguished from
other threatening processes because:
a. dingoes are the apex Australian communal living predator that influence ecosystem
processes (biological);
b. social views are divided between culling and conserving dingoes, however legislation
supports dingo control because dingoes, wild dogs and their hybrids are a declared pest and
land owners are obliged to control them;
c. recent studies indicate that the Australia sheep industry has declined due to predation or the
threat of predation by dingoes (Allen and West 2013) whilst other studies indicate the
industry declined as an affect of market pressure (Purcell 2010; Forsyth et al 2014);
d. arguments about ‘purity’ of dingoes and hybridisation between dingoes and domestic dogs
divert the debate from ecological function to superficial semantic arguments;
e. ideologies are influenced by the removal of predators due to conflict with social and
2
economic factors. Every state and territory in Australia control ‘dingoes, wild dogs and their
hybrids’ to satisfy cultural beliefs that predators should be ‘eradicated’.
For the purpose of this nomination the use of the term ‘dingo’ or ‘dingoes’ should be interpreted to
include wild dogs and dingo-cross-dog hybrids, due to the fact that it is thought that the same
ecological role is performed by wild dogs and dingo hybrids as performed by the ‘pure’ dingo.
The essential role that top-order or communal living predators play in ecosystems has been well
documented in terrestrial, marine and freshwater systems (Power et al., 1985; Estes et al., 1998;
Crooks & Soulé 1999; Berger et al., 2001; Carpenter et al., 2001; Myers et al., 2007; Baum & Worm,
2009; Beschta & Ripple, 2009; Letnic et al., 2009b; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009). Top order predators
are interactive with the ecosystem; not only do they regulate the abundance, diversity and
composition of both their prey and competitors, but they are also intrinsically linked to the
productivity and health of the ecosystem (Estes et al., 1998; Berger et al., 2001; Myers et al., 2007;
Beschta & Ripple, 2009; Letnic et al., 2009b; Wallach et al., 2009). The influence that is exerted on
the system, by the way of trophic cascades through the food web, has also been linked to less
obvious processes such as the health of and biogeochemical exchanges between freshwater
systems, the soil and the atmosphere; fire; carbon sequestration; and the dynamics of disease (Glen
et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010; Estes et al., 2011; Letnic et al., 2013). These trophic cascades have been
found to act synergistically and additively with other environmental issues such as pollution, land
clearing, habitat loss, and climate change (see Estes et al., 2011).
The dingo (Canis dingo) also known as wild dog (Crowther 2014) is Australia’s top-order predator.
Dingoes arrived in Australia from East Asia between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago (Savolainen et al.,
2004; Oskarsson et al., 2012; Crowther et al., 2014). From the time of their arrival in Australia until
European colonisation dingoes were isolated from all other canid species. Through natural selection
and genetic drift, this led to dingoes becoming a unique taxon (Crowther et al., 2014). According to
definitions of ‘native species’ in state legislation and under the EPBC Act dingoes are Australia’s
native top-order mammalian predator. Further evidence for this is that they hunt in packs, have a
social hierarchy between pack members and prey upon animals that weigh more than their average
weight. Dingoes are also the largest native terrestrial carnivore, standing approximately 60cm high
and weighing on average around 15kg. Like other wild canids such as wolves, coyotes and jackals,
dingoes can inter-breed with domestic dogs. In most regions where dingoes remain hybridisation is
minimal, however, in south-eastern introgression between dingoes and domestic dogs is more
widespread. However, most animals in south-east Australia retain the typical morphological
characteristics evident the pre-European and 19th century dingoes (Crowther et al 2014).
Dingoes inhabit a diverse range of ecosystems on the mainland, from deserts to woodlands, to
alpine regions and rainforests, and numerous habitats in between (Purcell, 2010). They are highly
sociable animals that often live in family groups. Dingoes are crepuscular with most activities
occurring at dusk and dawn, similar to that of their prey species (Brook et al., 2012). The majority of
their diet is made up of one or two prey species, which differ depending on the region in which they
live. The main prey species for dingoes in eastern and south-eastern Australia are eastern grey
kangaroos (Macropus giganteus), swamp wallabies (Wallabia bicolor), brushtail possums
(Trichosurus vulpecular) and wombats (Vombatidae sp.); in central and north central Australia
dingoes typically feed on agile wallabies (Macropus agilis), European rabbits (Oryctolagus
cuniculus), reptiles and magpie geese (Anseranas semipalmata); and in western Australia on red
kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and Australia euros (Macropus robustus) (Newsome et al., 1983;
Thomson, 1992; Purcell, 2010). However, the main prey species change throughout the year
depending on prey abundance, and on the dingo’s annual reproductive cycle (Newsome et al., 1983;
Thomson, 1992; Purcell, 2010). When dingoes are in stable cooperative packs they tend to hunt
larger prey such as kangaroos, while solitary dingoes hunt small to medium prey that are easier to
catch (Glen et al., 2007). Control of dingoes results in the fracturing of these packs which is thought
to lead to increased hunting of livestock.
In the vital role that they fulfil as top order predator, dingoes help to regulate herbivore abundance
3
through direct predation. Dingoes have been shown to prey upon a number of introduced pest
species including European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), feral goats (Capra hircus), pig (Sus
scrofa) and deer (Cervidae Sp.) (Marsack & Campbell, 1990; Newsome, 1990; Mitchell & Banks,
2005; Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010). Dingoes also prey upon native herbivores such as kangaroos
and wallabies, species which without predation can deplete native vegetation (Caughley et al. 1980;
Short, 1985; Thomson, 1992; Letnic et al., 2009b; Wallach et al., 2009; Colman et al 2014).
Increased grazing or trampling by herbivores can have wide ranging effects, not only reducing food
availability but also altering vegetation structure; this can be detrimental for smaller mammals and
birds that rely on structurally-complex vegetation for refuges and nesting sites (Fisher, 2000; Berger
et al., 2001; Wallach et al., 2009; Colman et al 2014).
Dingoes provide substantial benefits for small and medium sized native mammals by suppressing
the abundance of introduced predators, the red fox and feral cat (Letnic et al 2011; Brook et al 2012;
Kennedy et al 2011). Dingoes supress cat and fox number through direct killing, but also influence
the behaviour of these species (Newsome et al., 1983; Marsack & Campbell, 1990; Thomson, 1992;
Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005). Brook et al. (2012) showed that in areas where
dingo activity was reduced at dusk (controlled areas) there was increased cat activity. They also
noted that cats avoided areas in which dingoes were frequently located. This may be an important
and effective way to control feral cat populations as they typically avoid other control methods such
as poisoned bait (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Brook et al., 2012).
In areas where dingo populations are supressed by poison baiting, numbers of smaller predators
tend to increase along with their predatory impact on prey. This phenomenon is termed
mesopredator release (Ritchie and Johnson 2009). Consequently, populations of native animals that
are preyed upon heavily by cats and foxes tend to be suppressed in areas where dingoes are
controlled (Letnic et al 2009a&b, Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Gordon et al 2015).
The effects of mesopredator release induced by dingo control are evident in continental-wide
patterns of marsupial and rodent persistence (Smith and Quinn 1996; Johnson et al 2007). At a
continental scale there is a strong correlation between the persistence of native rodents and
marsupials and the presence of the dingo, which suggests that native mammals benefit from dingoes
suppressive effects on foxes (Johnson et al 2006).
Inside the dingo fence in western NSW – an area that has had no, or very few, dingoes for close to
100 years - 24 native mammal species have become extinct (Purcell, 2010). Although a number of
other factors doubtlessly played a role in these extinctions, dingo removal was certainly a
contributing factor. The suppression of dingoes has not only allowed introduced mesopredators (cats
and foxes) to increase predation on the smaller ‘critical weight range’ animals (between 100-5000g;
Johnson & Isaac, 2009), but also left larger herbivores (kangaroos) unregulated, causing extensive
overgrazing and adding further pressure through competition for resources on smaller mammal
species (Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009a, 2009b; Letnic & Crowther, 2013; Purcell, 2010).
Research has shown a greater abundance and diversity of native mammals in areas that contain
dingoes in comparison to those that exclude dingoes due to the fence; in the latter greater numbers
of foxes and kangaroos have been found to occur (Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009a,
2009b; Letnic & Crowther, 2013). This has also been backed up by other studies that showed a
greater abundance of native mammals where dingoes are present compared to when dingoes have
been removed from the area due to control programs (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks,
2005; Brook et al., 2012).
The link between the presence of dingoes and persistence of native mammals has led a number of
researchers to conclude that dingoes could aid the conservation of critical weight range animals that
are at severe risk of extinction due to predation by cats and foxes and competition from herbivores,
especially as dingoes are more inclined to hunt large prey (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell &
Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Letnic et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2013; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009;
Purcell, 2010; Brook et al., 2012). This could occur because dingoes, although a predator, tend to
4
occur at lower densities than either foxes or cats do in the absence of dingoes (Ritchie & Johnson,
2009). Consequently, where dingoes are present, the per capita rate of predation on native
mammals is lower than in areas where dingoes are rare and foxes and cats are common (Letnic and
Dworjanyn 2011; Letnic et al 2012). Therefore, dingoes may be effective as a passive conservation
tool (Letnic et al., 2013), especially in remote regions with little road access that comprise most of
the continent. In remote areas, dingoes are likely to be a more effective at controlling foxes than
poison baiting because the humans ability to access the landscape is limited, however dingoes
traverse the entire landscape because they are not restricted to roads. Dingoes can effectively limit
cat numbers and activity. This is an important benefit of retaining dingo populations because feral
cats do not readily take most types of poison baits.
It is for these reasons that this key threatening process nomination is proposed.
Indigenous Values
5.
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
Is the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups
within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.
It has been noted that the loss of the dingo would mean losing a living part of the hunter-gatherer
heritage and Indigenous culture (Clutton-Brock, 1995). Since dingoes arrived in Australia they have
been woven into numerous aspects of Aboriginal life, playing prominent parts in both mythology and
everyday life. They fulfilled the role of companion and protector (both physical and spiritual), and
were a source of warmth on cold nights (Clutton-Brock, 1995; Trigger et al., 2008; Smith & Litchfield,
2009; Purcell, 2010; AMRRIC, 2013). Dingoes may also have been used for hunting and a possible
food source when meat was scarce, although this has been questioned (see Smith & Litchfield,
2009). Select dingoes were granted certain human privileges and included into family units; they
were given ‘skin’ names, provided with some food and shelter, and were allowed to accompany
women to their ceremonies (Smith & Litchfield, 2009; AMRRIC, 2013).
Spiritually, dingoes been incorporated into the Dreamtime, with dog dreaming sites situated across
the country. Ceremonies based around dingoes - with dances, songs and stories - are still being
practised (Smith & Litchfield, 2009; AMRRIC, 2013). In some communities dingoes were considered
to be reincarnations of ancestors (AMRRIC, 2013), and were often seen as spiritual totems,
providing a reference point for social structure and custom (Smith & Litchfield, 2009; Purcell, 2010).
Dingoes were also classed as ‘lawmen’ responsible for instituting Dreaming laws (Smith & Litchfield,
2009).
Clearly dingoes play an important and culturally significant role within Indigenous communities. For
an accurate understanding of how the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem impact upon
the lives of Indigenous communities these communities should be consulted directly.
Criterion A: non-EPBC act listed species/ecological communities
For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. You do
not need to provide details of the eligibility for all questions 6-11, however the more information you provide the
more evidence is available to undertake the assessment. If there is insufficient data and information available to
allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant
question.
5
6.
SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed species that, due to the impact of the key threatening process,
could become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. For each species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;
c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this species; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria
for listing.
Scaly-tailed possum (Wyula squamicaudata)
Scaly-tailed possums (Wyula squamicaudata) are classed as near threatened. This species is
adversely affected by introduced cats (McKnight, 2008), which if not controlled could cause them to
become threatened. If dingoes are removed from the ecosystem then the numbers of cats may
flourish, which would likely result in greater losses of species, possibly including scaly-tailed
possums. However, while dingoes are present in the region they suppress the numbers of cats
(Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Letnic
et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012).
It is also likely that other native animals could become eligible for listing as a result of the loss of
dingoes from Australian landscapes.
7.
ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed ecological communities that, due to the impact of the key
threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category. For each ecological community please include:
a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;
c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this ecological community; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation
to the criteria for listing.
It is likely that the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem could result in ecological
communities becoming eligible for listing under the EPBC Act, especially due to the resultant
increased pressure from grazing. No specific examples can be provided at this stage.
Criterion B: Listing in a higher threat category
For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. You do
not need to provide details of the eligibility for all questions 6-11, however the more information you provide the
more evidence is available to undertake the assessment. If there is insufficient data and information available to
allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant
question.
8.
SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER THREAT CATEGORY AND
JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened species that, due to the impacts of the threatening
process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each
species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category that the item is currently listed in and the
category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed
category has been previously met);
c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this species; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria
for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the species was previously listed.
6
Fauna
Greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
 Extinct in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Vulnerable in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
 Endangered in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992
 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The positive effects of dingoes are mentioned directly in the Commonwealth SPRAT profile for the
threatened species Macrotis lagotis (Greater Bilby) (Department of the Environment, 2015a) as
follows:
“Dingoes are also known to take the Greater Bilby as prey, but have not been substantially linked
with the decline of the species (Southgate 1990; Southgate et al 2007). The Greater Bilby and
Dingoes occur in similar environmental conditions, and the presence of Dingoes may in fact improve
habitat favourability for the Greater Bilby. Dingoes are an important predator of cats and can possibly
displace fox activity (Southgate et al. 2007).”
Predation by foxes has been listed as the greatest threat to the greater bilby. Feral cats have also
been noted to prey upon them, however not to the extent to be a factor in their decline. While
dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats are
suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system mesopredators flourish (LundieJenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et
al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) increasing predation pressure on the greater bilby. The loss of the dingo
from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
 Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Critically endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
 Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The EPBC Act listing advice states that an overabundance of grazing herbivores can alter the
structure and diversity of the vegetation impacting the suitability of the habitat for the malleefowl.
Dingoes have been noted to mark the warrens of mallefowl (Leipoa ocellata) and greater bilbies
(Macrotis lagotis) with faeces which deterred both cats and foxes from going near the warrens
(O’Neill, 2002 cited by Glen et al., 2007; Wallach et al., 2009). These findings provide further
evidence for an association between the presence of dingoes and the survival of threatened species
Another major threat listed in the EPBC Act listing advice is predation, with foxes being the greatest
threat. Feral cats have also been noted to prey upon them, however not to the extent to be a factor
in their decline. Although this may change if the number of foxes decline as cat numbers will then
increase and take over as being the main predator. (Department of the Environment, 2015b)
While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both
7
mesopredators and herbivores are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the
system mesopredator and large herbivore numbers flourish (Newsome, 1990; Lundie-Jenkins et al.,
1993; Newsome et al., 2001; O’Neill, 2002 cited in Glen et al 2007; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Letnic et
al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) threatening the
malleefowl even further. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a
decline in the conservation status of this species.
New-Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
 Endangered in Tasmania under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
 Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The EPBC Act listing advice states that predation by red foxes, feral cats and dogs is a major threat
to the species (Department of the Environment, 2015c). While dingoes are present in the ecosystem
the abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes
are removed from the system the abundance of mesopredators flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993;
Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et
al., 2012) likely increasing predation pressure on the New-Holland mouse. The loss of the dingo from
the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Dusky-hopping mouse (Notomys fuscus)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
 Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
 Endangered in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992
 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The EPBC Act listing advice states that an over grazing by domestic stock, rabbits and the house
mouse (Mus musculus) have alter the structure and diversity of the vegetation in the region.
Predation is also listed as a threat, with foxes and feral cats being listed as the main sources.
(Department of the Environment, 2015d)
While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both
mesopredators and herbivores are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the
system mesopredator and large herbivore numbers flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome,
1990; Newsome et al., 2001; O’Neill, 2002 cited in Glen et al 2007; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Letnic et
al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) threatening the duskyhopping mouse even further. Studies by Letnic and Dworjanyn (2011) and Gordon et al (2015) have
shown that dusky-hopping mice foraged less efficiently in areas that had higher numbers of foxes
and cats where dingoes were absent or only present in extremely low numbers. Another study by
Letnic and Koch (2010) found that the Dusky Hopping-mouse was less abundant where dingoes
were absent, suggesting that they may benefit from lower red fox numbers in the presence of
dingoes. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the
conservation status of this species.
Brush-tailed rabbit-rat, also known as the brush-tailed tree-rat (Conilurus penicillatus)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
8



Endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
Near threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The major predator listed in the EPBC Act listing advice is the feral cat (Department of the
Environment, 2015e). While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity
patterns of cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system cats flourish
(Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010; Brook et al.,
2012), likely increasing predation pressure on the brush-tailed rabbit-rat. Recent research by Gordon
et al (2015) also suggests that that apex predators provide small prey with refuge from predation by
showing that rodents increased their habitat breadth and use of ‘risky’ food patches where the dingo
was common but mesopredators rare. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore
risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Tiger quoll, also known as spot-tailed quoll or the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus
maculatus)
Currently listed as:
 Endangered under the EPBC Act
 Vulnerable in the ACT under the Nature Conservation Act 1980
 Vulnerable in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Vulnerable in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992
 Endangered in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
 Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
The EPBC Act listing advice states that foxes, dingoes and domestic dogs prey on the tiger quoll,
while competition from cats and foxes is also listed as a threat (Department of the Environment,
2015f). Although tiger quolls are predated upon by dingoes, a study by Glen et al. (2011) showed
that quolls were more abundant when dingoes were present in the ecosystem compared to when
they were absent due to dingoes suppressing foxes. They also had less dietary overlap, and
therefore less competition for resources, with dingoes than with foxes and cats. The loss of the dingo
from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Rufous hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp.)
Currently listed as:
 Endangered under the EPBC Act
 Endangered in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
The EPBC Act listing advice states predation by cats as one of the main threats (Department of the
Environment, 2015g) , while a study by Lundie-Jenkins et al. (1993) noted that foxes also preyed on
the rufous hare-wallaby. In one instance a single fox decimated the entire local population of Rufous
hare-wallabies in one night. Foxes only became present in the ecosystem once the dingoes were
removed from the ecosystem through baiting. While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the
abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are
removed from the system mesopredators flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al.,
2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012)
increasing predation pressure on the Rufous hare-wallaby. The loss of the dingo from the Australian
landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Western barred bandicoot (Perameles bougainville bougainville)
Currently listed as:
 Endangered under the EPBC Act
 Endangered in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
9
The EPBC Act listing advice states that predation by red foxes and feral cats are major threats to the
species (Department of the Environment, 2015h). Dingoes have been shown to be a regulating force
in the presence and activity patterns of both foxes and cats. Therefore, if dingoes are removed from
the area in which the western barred bandicoot are located there is a strong likelihood that the
abundance of mesopredators would flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001;
Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012), in turn
increasing predation pressure on the bandicoot. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape
therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Golden bandicoot (Isoodon auratus auratus)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
 Extinct in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
 Endangered in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
The major predators listed in the EPBC Act listing advice is the feral cat and domestic dogs
(Department of the Environment, 2015i). While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance
and activity patterns of cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system
cats flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010;
Brook et al., 2012), leaving the golden bandicoot at risk of greater predation pressure which in turn
may lead to a drastic decline in their numbers. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape
therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus)
Currently listed as:
 Endangered under the EPBC Act
 Critically endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000
 Endangered in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950
 Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Predators listed as threats in the EPBC Act listing advice are foxes and feral cats (Department of the
Environment, 2015j). The presence of dingoes in the ecosystem suppresses the abundance and
activity patterns of both foxes and cats. However, when dingoes are removed from the system the
abundance of mesopredators flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et
al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) likely increasing
predation pressure on the northern quoll. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape
therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Bridled nail-tailed wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata)
Currently listed as:
 Endangered under the EPBC Act
 Extinct in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Endangered in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992
 Threatened in VIC under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
 Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Predators listed as threats in the EPBC Act listing advice are feral cats and dingoes, with cats being
the greatest threat (Department of the Environment, 2015k). Although dingoes are listed as a
predator, the listing mentions that dingoes are also potentially of benefit to the bridled nail-tailed
10
wallaby, as their presence reduces the numbers of foxes and cats present in the area. Dingoes were
also noted as possibly being the main reason that the population of bridled nail-tailed wallabies
persisted in Taunton National Park has persisted whereas they have perished elsewhere (Fisher,
2000; Lundie-Jenkins, 2001). Hence, removing dingoes would leave this species vulnerable to
greater predation pressure from both cats and foxes. The loss of the dingo from the Australian
landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
Yellow-footed rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus)
Currently listed as:
 Vulnerable under the EPBC Act
 Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972
According to the EPBC Act listing advice some of main threats to the yellow-footed rock-wallaby are
predation by foxes and cats, as well as competition from introduced herbivores (mainly rabbits, goats
and sheep) (Department of the Environment, 2015l). In a study by Wallach et al. (2009), yellowfooted rock-wallabies were shown to live in association with dingoes in nine locations in NSW.
Dingoes were found to be present at nine yellow-footed rock-wallaby colonies within the dingo fence
in NSW, suggesting that they offered some protection to the wallabies from predation by foxes and
cats (Wallach et al., 2009). This was related to the fact that dingoes keep the number of foxes and
cats in the region in check, reducing the predation pressure on the wallabies. Dingoes also reduce
the number of rabbits and goats in the area by direct predation. Therefore, if dingoes are removed
there will likely be an increase in number of both mesopredators and herbivores in the area, which
could have a large impact on the population of yellow-footed rock-wallabies. The loss of the dingo
from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species.
The species listed above are just a sub-sample of animals that may be adversely affected by the
loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem. However, any other species currently listed on the
EPBC Act that are preyed upon by foxes and/or cats, and/or in competition for resources with native
and/or introduced herbivores may also be adversely affected by the loss or removal of the top-order
predator from the system.
Flora
Any species currently listed on the EPBC Act list that is threatened by overgrazing or trampling from
native and introduced herbivores may be adversely affected by the removal of dingoes from the
ecosystem, due to the consequent increase in herbivore numbers. Examples of these plants include,
but are not limited to:










Austral toadflax (Thesium australe)
Torrington pea (Almaleea cambagei)
MacDonnell Ranges cycad (Macrozamia macdonnellii)
Kalbarri leschenaultia (Lechenaultia chlorantha)
Hakea maconochieana
Ooldea Guinea-flower (Hibbertia crispula)
Long-leafed myrtle (Hypocalymma longifolium)
Olearia macdonnellensis
Sclerolaena walkeri
Mountain thryptomene (Thryptomene wittweri)
11
9.
ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER
THREAT CATEGORY AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities that, due to the impacts of the
threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of
endangerment. For each ecological community please include:
a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category that the item is currently listed in and
the category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed
category has been previously met);
c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this ecological community; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation
to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the ecological community
was previously listed.
There is the potential for any of the listed Threatened Ecological Communities, as listed in section
11, to become eligible for listing in a higher category if the threat of the loss or removal of the dingo
from the ecosystem is not abated. No specific examples can be provided at this time.
Criterion C: Adversely affected listed species or ecological communities
For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. You do
not need to provide details of the eligibility for all questions 6-11, however the more information you provide the
more evidence is available to undertake the assessment. If there is insufficient data and information available to
allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant
question.
10. SPECIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide a summary of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, that are considered to be adversely affected by
the threatening process. For each species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
b. justification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
All of the species listed in Section 8 are impacted by the proposed threatening process. This
includes the following species:












Greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis)
Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)
New-Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae)
Dusky-hopping mouse (Notomys fuscus)
Brush-tailed rabbit-rat (Conilurus penicillatus)
Tiger quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus)
Rufous hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp.)
Western barred bandicoot (Perameles bougainville bougainville)
Golden bandicoot (Isoodon auratus auratus)
Northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus)
Bridled nail-tailed wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata)
Yellow-footed rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus)
Justification for how they are adversely affected by the threatening process is covered in section 8.
It is also likely that any other EPBC-listed species predated by foxes and feral cats, or impacted by
over grazing or competition for resources from introduced or native herbivores will be affected by the
loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem.
12
11. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide a summary of ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are considered to be
adversely affected by the threatening process. For each ecological community please provide:
a.
the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
b.
justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
The communities listed below are currently listed on the EPBC Act due to the threats posed by
grazing pressures by native and/or introduced herbivores, whose abundances may be increased by
the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem. The detrimental effects of grazing pressures is
noted in the EPBC Act listing advices for the following threatened communities:




Peppermint box (Eucalyptus odorata) grassy woodland of South Australia (Critically
Endangered)
Natural grasslands of the Queensland central highlands and the northern Fitzroy basin
(Endangered)
Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales
and southern Queensland (Critically Endangered)
White box – Yellow box – Blakely’s red gum grassy woodland and derived native grassland
(Critically Endangered)
Further research is required to look at the links between the loss of dingoes from Australian
landscapes and the impacts on these ecological communities.
Threat Abatement
12. THREAT ABATEMENT
Give an overview of how threats posed by this process are being abated by current (or proposed) activities. Identify who
is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date.
Dingoes have long been persecuted in Australia for killing livestock, which also led them to being
classed as a pest species in many jurisdictions. However, studies have shown that livestock makes
up only between 1-7% of a dingoes diet, and even then it could not be determined whether these
were healthy, sick, or even carrion before they were eaten (Corbett, 1995 cited in Letnic et al., 2013).
Research has shown that in areas of South Australia and Queensland where dingoes are controlled
there is an increase in livestock predation, particularly after the cull has taken place (Glen et al.,
2007; Purcell, 2010). This is due to a breakdown in the social structure of packs that have lost one or
more members causing some dingoes to hunt alone and seek out easy prey such as livestock
(Wallach et al., 2009; Purcell, 2010). Young dingoes who are members of packs that have been
controlled may not have been taught the skills required for hunting, which again leaves them
searching for easy prey (Wallach et al., 2009). After dingo control there has also been shown to be
an increase in rabbit (Corbett, 1995 cited in Glen et al., 2007), red kangaroo (Caughley et al., 1980),
and feral cat populations (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993). Pasture depletion by irrupting kangaroos is
also likely to lead to subsequent economic impacts on livestock production (Letnic and Crowther
2013
As a result, numerous cattle station owners are now beginning to see the dingo as an ally, with some
consciously allowing dingoes to remain on their properties. For example, Angus Emmott, the chair of
the Lake Eyre Basin Community Advisory Committee has stated “as a cattleman, I like to have
dingoes on my place. Why? Do I lose a few calves? Yes, I probably do, though it’s hard to tell
sometimes whether a half-eaten carcass was a healthy calf knocked over by dingoes or was sick
and not going to make it anyway. But the dingoes I have on my place help my cattle production by
keeping the kangaroo numbers down…. in many types of country they suppress the numbers of feral
13
cats and foxes. They kill some and scare others off. This is good for native species as the cats and
foxes have the greatest impact on the many species of small native mammals which are struggling
to hang on. Dingoes will get small animals sometimes, but they aren’t as agile and cunning at killing
as the cats and foxes. As a person who loves the bush and our native animals, that’s important to
me” (Emmott, 2013, p23).
Restoring dingoes back into the ecosystem is therefore vital for the health of the environment and
the conservation of native species. Alongside a number of farmers now encouraging dingoes on their
lands (Emmot, 2013), Arian Wallach has set up three large-scale dingo recovery programs in
collaboration with pastoral landowners and indigenous custodians to monitor the ecological impacts
of restoring dingoes back into the ecosystem, through the ‘Dingo for Biodiversity Project’
(http://www.dingobiodiversity.com/arian-wallach.html ).
It has been proposed that to protect the role of dingoes in the landscape dingoes should be
reclassified as a protected native species rather than a pest species and that widespread dingo
poisoning control programs should cease and instead replaced where necessary by targeted control
of problem animals and non-lethal techniques to mitigate predation by dingoes. It is also suggested
that programs to fund guard animals, such as alpacas, donkeys and maremmas, for farmers should
be put in place to try to minimize any incidence of predation by dingoes. The nominator understands
that such projects are already underway.
As a relatively new area of science the important role of the dingo in the ecosystem has only recently
been fully understood. As a result there are few known projects already undertaking abatement
activities, however it is likely that this could be taking place across the country at the farm scale.
However a more coordinated national approach is required to address this threat.
13. DEVELOPMENT OF THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process?
What other measures could be undertaken?
The development of a threat abatement plan would be an appropriate way to deal with the loss or
removal of dingoes from the ecosystem at the scale required across broad areas of Australia which
crosses State and Territory borders.
In addition efforts are needed to improve and harmonise State and Territory policies with regard to
the identification of the dingo as a pest species, to be reclassified as a native species.
It is likely that smaller scale projects at a local district or even farm level as noted in section 12 above
would also complement a federal threat abatement plan and allow its delivery at a local level.
14. ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
If the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan
include?
The nominator considers that a threat abatement plan, and an associated threat abatement plan
team would be an appropriate place in which to gather information on all ongoing research on the
impact of the cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo
(including wild dogs and dingo cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes. Further research
should be funded to further our understanding of the ecological role of the dingo so that this can be
broadly recognised, as demonstrated by current research.
A threat abatement plan could provide a driving strategy to ensure the role of the dingo is recognised
as well as a monitoring mechanism to demonstrate how dingo control programs currently in place
are being managed or reduced wherever possible. This would also require an analysis of the state of
legislation across all State and Territory Governments on how dingoes are treated to provide greater
consistency in recognition of the ecological role they play. The nominator considers that a reduction
14
in dingo control programs is key to abating the threat, to be replaced with non-lethal approaches
currently being trialled.
The threat abatement plan should also list all species for which the presence of dingoes has been
shown through research to be beneficial, as demonstrated in this nomination.
15. ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATION
Is there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide?
Reviewers and Further Information
16. REVIEWER(S)
Has this nomination been reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include
their names and current professional positions.
The following people have all contributed to or been consulted on this nomination:
 Emma Jensson, HSI volunteer
 Emily Mowat, HSI volunteer
 Brad Purcell PhD, Adjunct fellow, School of Science and Health, University of Western
Sydney
 Mike Letnic, ARC Future Fellow & Associate Professor, Centre for Ecosystem Science,
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales
17. MAJOR STUDIES
Identify major studies that might assist in the assessment of the nominated threatening process.
It has been proposed that the dingo should be reintroduced to certain areas inside the dingo fence,
such as that by put forward by Newsome et al (2015) in their recent paper.
It is likely that many other studies are underway, at a local farm scale as well as broader projects
such as the Dingo for Biodiversity project http://www.dingobiodiversity.com/
18. FURTHER INFORMATION
Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national
park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).
There are likely to be many research projects underway as highlighted in section 17, however the
nominator is not aware of any other recovery or conservation plans in place to address this threat or
focussed on the dingo.
19. REFERENCE LIST
Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.
Allen, B. and West, P. (2013), Influence of dingoes on sheep distribution in Australia. Australian
Veterinary Journal, 91: 261–267. doi: 10.1111/avj.12075 Accessed 9th March 2015
Animal Management in Rural and Remote indigenous Communities (AMRRIC). (2013).
http://www.amrric.org/news/dingoes-and-dogs-indigenous-culture
Accessed 14 October 2014
Baum, J.K. and Worm, B. (2009). Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator
abundances. Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 78, 699-714
15
Berger, J., Stacey, P.B., Bellis, L. and Johnson, M.P. (2001). A mammalian predator-prey imbalance:
Grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants. Ecological Applications. Vol. 11,
947-960
Berger, J. and Gese, E.M. (2007). Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution
and abundance of coyotes? Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 76, 1075-1085
Beschta, R.L. and Ripple, W.J. (2009). Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial
ecosystems of the western United States. Biological Conservation. Vol. 142, 2401-2414
Brook, L.A., Johnson, C.N. and Ritchie, E.G. (2012). Effects of predator control on behaviour of an
apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. Journal of Applied Ecology.
Vol. 49, 1278-1286
Carpenter, S.R., Cole, J.J., Hodgson, J.R., Kitchell, J.F., Pace, M.L., Bade, D., Cottingham, K.L.,
Essington, T.E., Houser, J.N. and Schindler, D.E. (2001). Trophic cascades, nutrients, and lake
productivity: Whole-lake experiments. Ecological Monographs. Vol. 71, 163-186
Catling, P.C. and Burt, R.J. (1995) Why are Red Foxes Absent from some Eucalypt
Forests in Eastern New South Wales? Wildl. Rex, 1995,22,535-46
Caughley, G., Grigg, G. C., Caughley, J., and Hill, G. J. E. (1980). Does Dingo Predation Control
Densities of Kangaroos and Emus? Australian Wildlife Research. Vol 7, 1-12
Clutton-Brock, J. (1995) Origins of the dog domestication and early history. In: The Domestic Dog:
Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. J. Serpell (Ed.) pp. 7-20. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge
Colman, N.J., Gordon, C.E., Crowther, M.S., Letnic, M. (2014) Lethal control of an apex predator has
unintended cascading effects on forest mammal assemblages. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20133094.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3094
Crooks, K.R. and Soulé, M.E. (1999). Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a
fragmented system. Nature. Vol. 400, 563-566
Crowther, M.S., Fillios, M., Colman, N. and Letnic, M. (2014). An updated description of the
Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793). Journal of Zoology. Vol. 293, 192-203
Department of the Environment (2015)a. Macrotis lagotis in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:17:06 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)b. Leipoa ocellata in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:04:23 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)c. Pseudomys novaehollandiae in Species Profile and Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:08:26 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)d. Notomys fuscus in Species Profile and Threats Database,
Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:10:10 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)e. Conilurus penicillatus in Species Profile and Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
16
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:12:48 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)f. Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population) in
Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available
from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:15:46 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)g. Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp. in Species Profile
and
Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:17:46 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)h. Perameles bougainville bougainville in Species Profile and
Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:19:37 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)i. Isoodon auratus auratus in Species Profile and Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:20:53 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)j. Dasyurus hallucatus in Species Profile and Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:22:25 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)k. Onychogalea fraenata in Species Profile and Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:24:54 +1100.
Department of the Environment (2015)l. Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus in Species Profile and
Threats
Database,
Department
of
the
Environment,
Canberra.
Available
from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:27:24 +1100.
Emmott, A. (2013). Dingoes can be allies. National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program. Vol.
2, 23-24
Estes, J.A., Tinker, M.T., Williams, T.M. and Doak, D.F. (1998). Killer whale predation on sea otters
linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystem. Science. Vol. 282, 473-476
Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., Power, M.E., Berger, J., Bond, W.J., Carpenter, S.R.,
Essington, T.E., Holt, R.D., Jackson, J.B.C., Marquis, R.J., Oksanen, L., Oksanen, T., Paine, R.T.,
Pikitch, E.K., Ripple, W.J., Sandin, S.A., Scheffer, M., Schoener, T.W., Shurin, J.B., Sinclair, A.R.E.,
Soulé, M.E., Virtanen, R., and Wardle, D.A. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science.
Vol. 333, 301-306
Fisher, D.O. (2000). Effects of vegetation structure, food and shelter on the home range and habitat
use of an endangered wallaby. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 37, 660-671
Forsyth, D., Woolnough, A., Nimmo, D., Ritchie, E., Kennedy, M., Pople, A. and Watson, I. (2014), A
comment on the influence of dingoes on the Australian sheep flock. Australian Veterinary Journal,
92: 461–462. doi: 10.1111/avj.12277 Accessed 9th March 2015
Glen, A.S., Dickman, C.R., Soulé, M.E. and Mackay, B.G. (2007). Evaluating the role of the dingo as
a trophic regulator in Australian ecosystems. Austral Ecology. Vol. 32, 492-501
Glen, A.S., Pennay, M., Dickman, C.R., Wintle, B.A. and Firestone, K.B. (2011). Diets of sympatric
native and introduced carnivores in the Barrington Tops, eastern Australia. Austral Ecology. Vol. 36,
290-296
17
Gordon, C.E., Feit, A., Gruber, J., and Letnic, M. (2015) Mesopredator suppression by an apex
predator alleviates the risk of predation perceived by small prey. Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20142870.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2870
Johnson, C.N. and Isaac, J.L. (2009). Body mass and extinction risk in Australian marsupials: The
‘critical weight range’ revisited. Austral Ecology. Vol. 34, 35-40
Letnic, M., Crowther, M.S. and Koch, F. (2009a). Does a top-predator provide an endangered rodent
with refuge from an invasive mesopredator? Animal Conservation. Vol. 12, 302-312
Letnic, M., Koch, F., Gordon, C., Crowther, M.S. and Dickman, C.R. (2009b). Keystone effects of an
alien top-predator stem extinctions of native mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series B-Biological Sciences. Vol. 276, 3249-3256
Letnic, M. and Koch, F. (2010). Are dingoes a trophic regulator in arid Australia? A comparison of
mammal communities on either side of the dingo fence. Austral Ecology, 35(2), 167–175
Letnic, M. and Dworjanyn, S.A. (2011). Does a top predator reduce the predatory impact of an
invasive mesopredator on an endangered rodent? Ecography. Vol. 34, 827-835
Letnic, M., Greenville, A., Denny, E., Dickman, C.R., Tischler, M., Gordon, C. and Koch, F. (2011).
Does a top predator suppress the abundance of an invasive mesopredator at a continental scale?
Global Ecology and Biogeography. Vol. 20, 343-353
Letnic, M., Ritchie, E. G. and Dickman, C.R. (2012) Top predators as biodiversity regulators:
the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study Biol. Rev. (2012), 87, pp. 390–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1469185X.2011.00203.x
Letnic, M. and Crowther, M.S. (2013). Patterns in the abundance of kangaroo populations in arid
Australia are consistent with the exploitation ecosystems hypothesis. Oikos. Vol. 122, 761-769
Letnic, M., Baker, L. and Nesbitt, B. (2013). Ecologically functional landscapes and the role of
dingoes as trophic regulators in south-eastern Australia and other habitats. Ecological Management
and Restoration. Vol. 14, 101-105
Lundie-Jenkins, G., Corbett, L.K. and Phillips, C.M. (1993). Ecology of the rufous hare-wallaby,
Lagorchestes hirsutus Gould (Marsupialia: Macropodidae), in the Tanami Desert, Northern Territory
III: Interactions with introduced mammal species. Wildlife Research. Vol. 20, 495-511
Lundie-Jenkins, G. (2001). Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata)
1997-2001. Report to Environment Australia, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service,
Brisbane. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/national-recovery-plan-bridlednailtail-wallaby-onychogalea-fraenata-1997-2001
Accessed 02 Jan 2015
McKnight, M. 2008. Wyulda squamicaudata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 March 2015
Marsack, P. and Campbell, G. (1990). Feeding behaviour and diet of dingoes in the Nullarbor region,
western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research. Vol. 17, 349-357
Mitchell, B.D. and Banks, P.B. (2005). Do wild dogs exclude foxes? Evidence for competition from
dietary and spatial overlaps. Austral Ecology. Vol. 30, 581-591
Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. (2007). Cascading
effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science. Vol. 315, 1846-1850
18
Newsome, A.E., Catling, P.C. and Corbett, L.K. (1983). The feeding ecology of the dingo II. Dietary
and numerical relationships with fluctuating prey populations in south-eastern Australia. Australian
Journal of Ecology. Vol. 8, 345-366
Newsome, A. (1990). The control of vertebrate pests by vertebrate predators. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution. Vol. 5, 187-191
Newsome, A.E., Lunney, D. and Dickman, C.R. (2001). The biology and ecology of the dingo. In: A
Symposium on the Dingo. D. Lunney and C.R. Dickman (Eds.). 20-33. Royal Zoological Society of
New South Wales: Mosman
Newsome, T.M., Ballard, G-A, Crowther, M.S., Dellinger, J.A., Fleming, P.J.S., Glen, A.S.,
Greenville, A.C., Johnson, C.N., Letnic, M., Moseby, K.E., Nimmo, D.G., Nelson, M.P., Read, J.L.,
Ripple, W.J., Ritchie, E.G., Shores, C.R.6, Wallach, A.D., Wirsing, A.J., and Dickman, C.R.. (2015)
Resolving the value of the dingo in ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration doi:
10.1111/rec.12186
Oskarsson, M.C.R., Kitsch, C.F.C., Boonyaprakob, U., Wilton, A., Tanabe, Y. and Savolainen, P.
(2012). Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for
Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
Series B-Biological Sciences. Vol. 279, 967-974
Power, M.E., Matthews, W.J. and Stewart, A.J. (1985). Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and
stream algae: Dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology. Vo. 66, 1448-1456
Purcell, B. (2010). Dingo. CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood
Ritchie, E.G., and Johnson, C.N. (2009). Predator interactions, mesopredator release and
biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters. Vol. 12, 982–998.
Savolainen, P., Leitner, T., Wilton, A.N., Matisoo-Smith, E. and Lundberg, J. (2004). A detailed
picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 101, 1238712390
Short, J. (1985). The functional response of kangaroos, sheep and rabbits in an arid grazing system.
Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 22, 435-447
Smith, B.P. and Litchfield, C.A. (2009). A review of the relationship between Indigenous Australias,
dingoes (Canis dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anthrozoös. Vol. 22, 111-128
Switalski, T.A. (2003). Coyote foraging ecology and vigilance in response to gray wolf reintroduction
in Yellowstone National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol. 81, 985-993
Thomson, P.C. (1992). The behavioural ecology of dingos in north-western Australia. III. Hunting and
feeding behaviour, and diet. Wildlife Research. Vol. 19, 531-541
Trigger, D., Mulcock, J., Gaynor, A. and Toussaint, Y. (2008). Ecological restoration, cultural
preferences and the negotiation of ‘nativeness’ in Australia. Geoforum. Vol. 39, 1273-1283
Wallach, A.D., Murray, B.R. and O’Neill, A.J. (2009). Can threatened species survive where the top
predator is absent? Biological Conservation. Vol. 142, 43-52
19
20. APPENDIX
Please place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can
provide them as an attachment.
Nominator's details
Note: Your details are subject to the provision of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice
regarding the nomination is sought from such parties.
21. TITLE
Mrs
22. FULL NAME
Alexia Wellbelove
23. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
Humane Society International
24. CONTACT DETAILS
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 02 9973 1728
Fax: 02 9973 1729
25.
Postal address:
PO Box 439, Avalon NSW 2107
DECLARATION
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct. I
understand that any unreferenced material within this nomination will be cited as ‘personal communication’ (i.e.
referenced in my name) and I permit the publication of this information.
Signed:
Date:
th
9 March 2015
* If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature
Prior to lodging your nomination
In order for received nominations to be eligible for consideration by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for
inclusion on the Finalised Priority Assessment List, nominations must contain all information required by Division 7.2 of
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (the Regulations)
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2000B00190.
To assist nominators in identifying information that is required to be included in the nomination, a checklist has been
provided for reference. You are not required to complete the checklist and submit it with your nomination. Checking
against the Regulations will be done by the department. The checklist is provided as a tool to so that you may ensure
that the nomination contains the required information and can be considered for assessment.
If the required information is not available to be provided in the nomination because of a lack of scientific data or
analysis it is a requirement of the Regulations that the nomination includes an explicitly statement that the data are
not available for that question.
Please check that your nomination contains the required information listed in the checklist prior to submission
20
How to lodge your nomination
Completed nominations may be lodged either:
1. by email to: [email protected], or
2. by mail to:
The Director
Species Information and Policy Section
Protected Species and Communities Branch
Department of the Environment
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
* If submitting by mail, please include an electronic copy on memory stick or CD.
Where did you find out about nominating items?
The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your
feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.
Please tick
DSEWPAC website
Australian newspaper
word of mouth
Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one………………………………………………………………….
web search
Other…Submitted previous nominations………………………………………………………..
Comments:
21
Attachment A: Further information on completing this form <back to top>
1. NAMING THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS <back to Q1>
The name provided should accurately reflect the scope of the process based on the description and evidence
provided in this form. The name nominated may not necessarily be the name adopted by the Committee for a
successful nomination.
Before nominating a key threatening process please check the list of listed key threatening processes and
unsuccessful nominations to determine if the key threatening process, a similar nomination, or broader key
threatening process that would include the nomination, has already been assessed and listed or found
unsuccessful. The EPBC Act list of key threatening processes and unsuccessful nominations is available here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/unsuccessful-ktp.html
4. DESCRIBING THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS <back to Q4>
Provide a description of the threatening process that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by
reference to
(i)
its biological and non-biological components.
Consider all the components which make up the threatening process. Each biological and non-biological component
of the process nominated should be defined as accurately and concisely as possible. If appropriate, in order to
distinguish the nominated threatening process from other processes, components which are specifically excluded
from the nominated process can be listed.
While not wishing to restrict the generality of nominations, the Committee would prefer that threatening processes
are identified as operating in particular landscape or ecological or seascape contexts.
(ii)
the processes by which those components interact (if known).
In relation to the biological and non-biological components defined above, nominators should attempt to identify
the interactions that occur between these components, i.e. to describe the actual process. All terms used to name
the interactions making up the process should be defined as accurately and as concisely as possible.
It would also be useful if the linkage between components demonstrates how the process threatens native species
or ecological communities. For example, it is conceivable that a change in vegetation cover could be threatening to
downstream aquatic species, but this linkage would need to be established before it could be understood as a
threatening process. Specific examples or data demonstrating impact on named native species or ecological
communities should not be included in the description (these are included in the justification section).
6 and 7. CRITERION A <back to Q6> <back to Q7>
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or an ecological community to become
eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent.
This criterion refers to species or ecological communities not currently included in the EPBC Act lists, but which
could become eligible for listing due to the impacts of the nominated threatening process. To meet this criterion
there must be a high likelihood of a significant effect, to the extent that the species or ecological community will
meet at least one of the criteria for listing, within an indicated timeframe, should the threat continue.
The conservation status categories of listing relevant to this criterion are:

for species: Extinct, Extinct in the wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable.

for ecological communities: Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable.
The guidelines and criteria for listing species and ecological communities in each of these categories can be found
here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-ecological-communities.pdf
Lists of EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities can be found here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl
Justification for the inclusion of species or ecological communities in the nomination needs to be provided.
Evidence should be provided for each species or ecological community listed that explains how the impact of the
key threatening process may result in the listing of the species/ ecological community and evidence for which
listing category the species/ecological community would be eligible under.
Although there are three criteria for listing a key threatening process, meeting any one of the criteria means a
threatening process is eligible for listing as a key threatening process. However, provision of all available evidence
against each criterion aids in assessment by the TSSC.
8 and 9. CRITERION B<back to Q8><back to Q9>
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological
community to become eligible to be listed in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment.
This criterion refers to species or ecological communities which are currently included in the EPBC Act lists. In order
to cause a species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in a category representing a higher degree
of endangerment, there must be a high likelihood of a significant effect, to the extent that the species or ecological
community will meet at least one criterion for the higher category, within an indicated timeframe, should the
threat continue.
The conservation status categories of listing relevant to this criterion are:
 for species: Extinct in the wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Conservation Dependant.
 for ecological communities: Endangered or Vulnerable.
The categories Extinct for species and Critically Endangered for ecological communities are not relevant, since there
are no categories representing a higher degree of endangerment.
The guidelines and criteria for listing species and ecological communities in each of these categories can be found
here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-ecological-communities.pdf
Lists of EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities can be found here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl
Justification for the inclusion of species or ecological communities in the nomination needs to be provided.
Evidence should be provided for each species or ecological community listed that explains how the impact of the
key threatening process may result in the species/ ecological community being listed in a category representing a
higher degree of endangerment.
Although there are three criteria for listing a key threatening process, meeting any one of the criteria means a
threatening process is eligible for listing as a key threatening process. However, provision of all available evidence
against each criterion aids in assessment by the TSSC.
10. CRITERION C <back to Q10> <back to Q11>
Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened species (other than
conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened ecological communities.
This criterion refers to species or ecological communities which are currently included in the EPBC Act lists. In order
to be adversely affecting a species or ecological community, the threatening process must currently occur where
the species or ecological community occurs, and there must be evidence of a current effect.
An adverse effect can include mortality, injury, spread of disease, disturbance to breeding, feeding or roosting
habits, habitat alteration or habitat destruction. The extent of impact which can be considered to be an adverse
effect depends on the attributes of the population, ecological characteristics, and category in which the
species/ecological community is listed. For example, if a species listed as Critically Endangered has less than 50
individuals remaining, then the death of a few individuals would probably constitute an adverse effect. Conversely,
the same impact in a species listed as Vulnerable, which has a population of over 9000, would not constitute an
adverse impact for the purpose of this criterion.
The conservation status categories relevant to this criterion are:

for species: Extinct in the wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable

for ecological communities: Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable
The category Extinct for species is not included since there cannot be a current adverse effect on this species.
However, if there is evidence of a previous adverse impact before the species became extinct, and this is highly
relevant to current impacts of the threatening process, this evidence can also be included.
Some of the information provided in Criterion B will also be relevant here. In this case, it should be provided again
in the context of this criterion, i.e. relating to adverse effects rather than population-level impacts.
The guidelines and criteria for listing species and ecological communities in each of these categories can be found
here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-ecological-communities.pdf
Lists of EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities can be found here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl
Justification for the inclusion of species or ecological communities in the nomination needs to be provided.
Although there are three criteria for listing a key threatening process, meeting any one of the criteria means a
threatening process is eligible for listing as a key threatening process. However, provision of all available evidence
against each criterion aids in assessment by the TSSC.
12. THREAT ABATEMENT <back to Q12>


Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date.
Describe any mitigation measures or approaches that have been developed specifically for the species at
identified locations. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to
date.
13. THREAT ABATEMENT ADVICE <back to Q13>
If a decision is made to list the threatening process being nominated as a key threatening process, the Minister
must then make a decision on whether to have a threat abatement plan.
This section is not required for the nomination to be eligible for listing as a key threatening process under the EPBC
Act. However any additional information provided by nominators can be used by the TSSC in preparing its advice to
the Minister on the feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency of developing a threat abatement plan, should the
threatening process be listed.
25. DECLARATION <back to Q25>
In signing this nomination form, you agree to grant the Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the
Department of the Environment) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, reproduce,
publish, communicate and distribute the information described in the nomination form (i.e. information you have
provided that is not referenced to other sources) in the Department’s websites and publications and to promote
those web sites and publications in any medium.
As the author of this information, you will be acknowledged in all publications and websites in which the
information appears, in a manner consistent with the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (latest edition).