agriculture.vic.gov.auagriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0008/... · Web viewVictoria has developed a detailed system to ... staff undertake tactical planning for

FINAL REPORT

Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future ApproachesReport prepared for DEDJTR

Marsden Jacob AssociatesFinancial & Economic Consultants

ABN 66 663 324 657ACN 072 233 204

Internet: http://www.marsdenjacob.com.auE-mail: [email protected]

Melbourne office:Postal address: Level 3, 683 Burke Road, CamberwellVictoria 3124 AUSTRALIATelephone: 03 9882 1600Facsimile: 03 9882 1300

Perth office:Level 1, 220 St Georges Terrace, Perth Western Australia, 6000 AUSTRALIATelephone: 08 9324 1785Facsimile: 08 9322 7936This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between Marsden Jacob Associates Pty Ltd ACN 072 233 204 (MJA) and the Client. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by the Client and Marsden Jacob Associates accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties.

Copyright © Marsden Jacob Associates Pty Ltd 2016

MARSDEN JACOB ASSOCIATES

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Executive Summary.............................................................................1

Future design considerations..............................................................9

1. Stocktake of other jurisdictions....................................................111.1 Key Australian jurisdictions...............................................................................111.2 International — Coyote control in the USA........................................................19

3. Assessment of efficacy.................................................................243.1 Key points..........................................................................................................243.2 Framework for assessing efficacy and examining potential improvements......253.3 Overall program performance...........................................................................263.4 Regional program performance.........................................................................353.5 Optimising control activities..............................................................................423.6 Optimising control activity.................................................................................46

4. Data — risks, gaps, strengths & opportunities..............................544.1 Strengths...........................................................................................................544.2 Gaps......................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................564.3 Risks......................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................574.4 Opportunities.....................................................................................................57

5. Other policies..............................................................................595.1 Conservation of biodiversity..............................................................................595.2 Animal welfare...................................................................................................595.3 Chemical use.....................................................................................................605.4 Workplace health and safety.............................................................................62

6. Capitalising on operational efficiencies.........................................63

7. Optimal mix of approaches..........................................................647.1 Background.......................................................................................................647.2 Comparative performance of control measures................................................657.3 Optimal design mix issues.................................................................................67

8. Optimal governance....................................................................71

9. Other options for improvement....................................................72

10. References..................................................................................73


LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1 Summary of the management arrangement for wild dogs across selected jurisdictions.................................................................................................................................................13Table 2: Types of coyote control measures.............................................................................19Table 3: Lethal methods used by Wildlife Services in Virginia 2013 (n=341)..........................22Table 4: Comparative measures modelled to indicate – comparative ground baiting versus trapping costs..........................................................................................................................42Table 5: Composition of costs..................................................................................................43Table 6: Baiting cost assumptions...........................................................................................44Table 7: Trapping cost assumptions........................................................................................45Table 8: Comparative effectiveness – ground baits vs traps...................................................46Table 9: Options for change under 72 hour trap inspections...................................................47Table 10: Summary of impacts for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections..........48Table 11: Options for change under 72 hour trap inspections.................................................51Table 12: Impact on trapping/baiting levels and costs............................................................52Table 13: Comparison of alternative control measures...........................................................65Table 14: Estimate impacts of alternative control scenarios...................................................67

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1 Number of sheep killed and coyotes removed in Virginia..........................................22Figure 2: Key program inputs, outputs and outcomes............................................................25Figure 3: Change in program effort 2012/13 – 2014/5............................................................26Figure 4: Change in program expenditures............................................................................27Figure 5: Number of baits laid................................................................................................27Figure 6: CWDC hours contributed to assist the control of wild dogs.....................................28Figure 7: Baits effectiveness – overall....................................................................................29Figure 8: Trapping effectiveness - overall...............................................................................30Figure 9: Livestock deaths from wild dogs – overall...............................................................33Figure 10: Dog attack reports – overall...................................................................................33Figure 11: Effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes – overall.......................................34Figure 12: Regional management zones and clusters............................................................35Figure 13: Overall baits laid – by region.................................................................................36Figure 14: Community baiting – by region..............................................................................36Figure 15: DELWP ground baits laid – by region.....................................................................37Figure 16: Traps checked – by region.....................................................................................37Figure 17: Ground baits taken by wild dogs per baits laid – by region...................................39Figure 18: Dogs trapped per traps checked – by region.........................................................39Figure 19: Livestock deaths – by region.................................................................................40Figure 20: Dog attack reports – by region..............................................................................41Figure 21: Effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes – livestock deaths by region........41Figure 22: Effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes – reported dog attacks by region.42Figure 23: Comparative cost per bait/trap night.....................................................................43Figure 24: Impact on dogs killed per annum for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections – relative to the base case....................................................................................48Figure 25: Impact on costs for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections...............49Figure 26: Impact on dog take per annum for alternative options under 48 and 24 hour trap inspections – relative to the 72 hour base case.......................................................................53Figure 27: Impact on costs for alternative options under 48 and 24 hour trap inspections. . .53


Executive SummaryBackground and context

Wild dogs are a significant threat to Victoria’s livestock industry, at an estimated cost of $13–18 million per year. Wild dogs attack livestock, causing death, injury, lost production and social impacts. The damage caused by wild dogs is confronting for land managers and the social impacts associated with wild dog attacks significantly affects the health of land owners and rural communities. The management of wild dogs has been, and continues to be a contentious issue in Victoria. The Victorian Government is committed to working with affected land owners to reduce the economic, social and environmental impacts of wild dogs in Victoria and to meet its responsibilities as a land owner under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

In 2015 the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), in collaboration with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DEWLP), asked for an evaluation of the Wild Dog Control Program, to ensure Victoria’s wild dog management approach remained strategic, effective and appropriate to meet the ever-changing needs of land managers, community members and the environment.

DEDJTR commissioned Marsden Jacob Associates to undertake the evaluation, which aimed to ensure that Victoria continued to use the right mix of tools, strategies and technologies for the future health of the Wild Dog Control Program.

The Wild Dog Evaluation was conducted in two parts. These consisted of a review of the:

1. Wild Dog Control Advisory Committee (WDCAC) and the governance of the implementation of the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria 2014–2019 (Action Plan)

2. Victorian wild dog management program and options for future approaches.

The scope for Part 2 of the evaluation - a Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches - was framed by several key tasks. The findings and options for future improvements are summarised below.

Summary of findings

Document approaches, tools and technologies currently available for the management of wild dogs in Victoria, elsewhere in Australia and elsewhere internationally, alongside local operating conditions including but not limited to topography and legislation.

There is a wide diversity of approaches to wild dog management across affected jurisdictions. A key point of separation with other states is that Victoria has the most centrally organised and public control operated program, and is the only jurisdiction that has developed a service offer to undertake public control activities in response to wild dog attacks on private land. This service offer is not a requirement under legislation but is an implicit interpretation by

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

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.


The effectiveness of ground baiting and trapping in producing outcomes (i.e. reduced livestock losses) has improved over the last three years. There has been a decrease in the number of confirmed livestock deaths per bait/trap night between 2013/14 and 2014/15. However, this improvement should be interpreted cautiously due to the short time period we have analysed and seasonality issues.

There is also a substantial variation in program performance across management zones. In some areas there is evidence of reductions in the levels of dog attacks and in the level of dog attack per bait and trap night. In other areas this is not the case. The time period of data used in this review was short and there are substantial outliers that affect confidence in concluding there has been a sustained, across the board, decline.

Over time, there has been improvement in the relative effectiveness of baiting but no observable improvement in the relative effectiveness of trapping. In general, ground baiting is the most effective and cost efficient means of proactive wild dog control.

Baiting, while having a lower level of take per bait night compared to trapping, has a higher level of labour productivity than trapping — with a substantially higher number of baits that can be laid per hour and dogs taken per hour of labour than trapping. Moreover, as a control measure, baiting is essential to strategies of pre-attack reduction of wild dogs within the buffer zone and creating control lines within the buffer zone.

A drawback of baiting, which is partially managed by bait laying practices, is the likelihood of a higher level of non-target species take compared to other control technologies – noting that there is limited understanding of non-target take by baiting, which is a critical weakness in comparing across control measures.

Additionally, while baiting has advantages as a proactive control measure, it is also not well suited to reactive control in part because problem dogs are less likely to take baits and there are restrictions on the laying of baits near the boundaries of affected properties.

Trapping, by comparison, is significantly more labour intensive and therefore less cost effective than baiting. Trapping costs are estimated to be almost 30 times higher than baiting costs per night. Substantially fewer trap nights are achieved per unit of control labour, however, the level of dog take per trap night is much higher than that of per bait night.

Trapping is less cost effective in terms of overall dog take and is better used in a post-attack management strategy to limit the capacity of repeat attack by individual dogs and also capture other dogs that have not been taken by proactive baiting as they move towards livestock.

While trapping is more targeted than baiting, trapping still has significant levels of non-target species impact. Trapping is used to better target known problem dogs and can achieve capture in instances where a dog may choose not to take bait.

It is difficult within the available data to fully verify efficacy of trapping as a means of targeted take. There is some evidence that the level of trapping efficiency varies between regions,


which could depend on a range of factors including geography, weather and skill level of wild dog controllers.

A likely link exists between changes of wild dog controllers in some areas with improvements in trapping take. On the whole, there is no evidence trapping efficiency has improved across the board.

The challenge in devising an optimal public control response is weighing the merits of baiting as a pre-emptive tool to reduce the likelihood of attack and trapping as a post-attack tool to limit the likelihood of re-attacks by problem dogs or those not taken by proactive baiting as they move towards livestock.

The choice of control should therefore be viewed as a sophisticated mix of tools depending on the circumstances. In principle, it is beneficial to manage the population of wild dogs within the buffer zone to reduce the likelihood of problem dogs. It is also sensible to strategically target individual problem dogs.

Identify risks, critical gaps, strengths and opportunities to improve the delivery of the program by considering how Victoria records, analyses and value adds to data collected in the program.

The collection, analysis and communication of compulsorily reported data and public Wild Dog Control Program data have substantially improved since 2012. Dedicated reporting apps allow real-time point-of-activity reporting by wild dog controllers. This real-time spatial reporting of activity on public land into the central database (Dogbytes) only exists in Victoria.

The recording of data has enabled the Departments to demonstrate at local and regional levels the scale and scope of wild dog control activities by Government. This has been beneficial on many fronts, including improving the transparency of management activities and improving landholder perceptions of the program, planning of control activities and performance evaluation.

However, a number of current performance measures are not appropriate to be used as a basis for assessing the performance and efficacy of the program. For example, the number of traps set appears to bear little resemblance to trapping effort since trap sets are only recorded if the location of the trap is changed.

There are also gaps in the data collection process that require rectifying. For example, quarterly reporting should shift to seasonal analysis and management zones data should be aggregated and reported to meaningful areas of management and impact overlay.

There are also substantial gaps in knowledge on the take of baits by target and non-target species and the trapping of targeted wild dogs.

There are a number of data gaps associated with Dogbytes. Data prior to 2012 were manually recorded and are not consistent or easily comparable with data recorded from 2012 using electronic media.


There are also gaps in the way the data are accessed and used.

The gaps present in the current arrangements for program data pose a number of risks, including inefficiencies in running multiple data systems and processes to generate reporting, as is currently the case. These gaps and risks, however, offer a number of opportunities to improve the collection and use of program data.

An important first step would be to improve data gathering on private and group control activities. The current aggregation of individual and community baiting into long time periods and the lack of analysis of control outcomes limits the effectiveness of measuring and analysing private control activities. It is therefore difficult to understand the interaction between public and private control activities and their relative efficacy.

There is also an urgent need to identify levels of target and non-target species take for the baiting program and to gather sound empirical evidence that targeted trapping achieves its intended objectives.

There are several other opportunities to improve the use of the database as an intelligence tool to improve the efficacy of the program, but these opportunities need to be weighed against the costs of making changes to the database and program and how they fit with the objective of the program.

Analyse how other government policies e.g. conservation of biodiversity (particularly dingoes), animal welfare, chemical use and work place health and safety pertains to the delivery of the Wild Dog Control Program, in the context of the government’s commitment to reducing the negative impacts of wild dogs on livestock while minimising the impact of wild dog control on Victoria’s biodiversity, including threatened species.

Wild dog control is delivered in the context of the Victorian Government’s commitment across a range of regulatory requirements, including those that relate to threatened species and biodiversity protection, animal welfare, occupational health and safety and chemical use. The need to balance these objectives is necessarily reflected in the design of the Wild Dog Control Program.

The Victorian government has management and regulatory requirements around the protection of threatened species, and the need to minimise the impact of wild dog control on Victoria’s biodiversity. In particular, dingoes are a threatened species listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and protected under the Wildlife Act 1975. A key challenge is that dingoes are visually indistinguishable from wild dogs thereby making it impossible to ensure that they are not inadvertently destroyed via wild dog control programs.

To address this issue, in 2010, an Order in Council was made under the Wildlife Act 1975 (and extended in 2013 for five years) which declared that dingoes are unprotected wildlife on all private land in Victoria and on public land within 3 kilometres of any private land boundary across two regions of Victoria (livestock protection zone). These two regions relate to the eastern part of the state and a section of the north west of the state.

The livestock protection zone provides a line of defence between public and private land and enables wild dog control to occur where it is needed to best


protect livestock. A benefit of the livestock protection zone is that it allows a targeted and focused approach to wild dog management: government and private landholders are able to co-operate to undertake wild dog management on both private land and public land as described in the Wild Dog Management Zone Work Plans.

Wild Dog Zone Management Plans allow government and community to work together to identify areas of strategic importance for wild dog control on public land, noting that authorisation requires wild dog control outside of the 3km zone to be targeted, specific and justified for livestock protection.

Government also balances animal welfare objectives with wild dog control objectives. The current animal welfare exemptions enable 72 hour trap checking and if these inspection times were to be reduced to improve animal welfare they would, other things being equal, reduce the capacity of the program to undertake trapping and baiting control.

Additionally, there has been a range of reforms to chemical use arrangements in recent years that have improved the access of private landholders to 1080 poison. However, chemical use arrangements have limited the flexibility of the program to incorporate CPEs into the program and reduce non-target species take.

Finally, there are opportunities that could be explored to encourage and enable farmers to undertake wild dog control, as part of community led programs, on both public and private land.

Analyse current efforts to capitalise on operational efficiencies between private and public sector programs, initiatives and organisations, to assess whether mutually beneficial outcomes are being realised, to inform whether there are opportunities to build on this approach.

If one of the intermediate outcomes of the program is to reduce wild dog attacks by increasing dog take, under a limited budget, it is likely to be beneficial to shift further effort towards baiting. At a minimum encouraging and facilitating greater community participation in seasonal baiting should leverage this.

There are binding constraints, however, at present in shifting public control effort toward increased seasonal baiting. Under current roster regimes and trap inspection assumptions, lowering the trapping effort could dedicate extra time within any given week to more baiting, but this would mean the extra baiting effort is spread across the year and not shifted to support seasonal baiting periods.

Greater roster flexibility would enable further individual labour effort to be transferred to align with seasonal baiting activities such as those already directed toward supporting the Baiting Coordinator Project and to assess opportunities to maximise operational synergies between the Wild Dog Control Program and other predator control programs, noting that such operational synergies need to be considered in the context of statewide priorities for each program.


Private sector investment in seasonal baiting needs to increase to capitalise on past gains. There may be a case to redirect some public control budget towards enabling and leveraging more private sector seasonal baiting through contractors and landholders.

Expanding the use of CPEs as an additional form of control is likely to increase the effectiveness of the program. Based on NSW Parks and Wildlife Service experiences, CPEs will enable more assured dog take, reduce the incidence of caching baits and significantly reduce the risk of non-target take. Current impediments to the wide spread adoption of CPEs in the public program should be addressed immediately.

Recommend the optimal mix of approaches, tools and technologies, current or otherwise, to be used in Victoria, considering the efficacy, cost effectiveness, return on investment, animal welfare issues and impact on off target species.

There is a need to clarify the relative importance of the current strategic objectives of the program and to sharpen the understanding of the extent to which the program is one of restricting dogs from getting onto private land or reducing the population of wild dogs in areas nearby to private land, including the relative priority of reactive and proactive effort.

It is not feasible or practical to shift all of the control activities to either solely trapping or baiting.

While baiting requires fewer resources, it is not clear what precisely the optimal ratio level of baiting to trapping might be for a given control budget.

If one of the intermediate objectives of the program is to increase dog take in order to reduce livestock losses, under a limited budget, it is likely the optimal level of trapping is below current levels and the optimal level of baiting is above current levels.

There are likely cost efficiencies to be gained in terms of the level of dog take if the balance of program activities was shifted from its current mix. However, it is unclear what the likely net impact might be of these changes on the protection of livestock – particularly repeat attacks by problem dogs. A sustained and substantial increase in the level of baiting within the 3-kilometre buffer zone would be required to partially offset impact of reducing trapping on the level of attack by problem dogs.

The broad approach of increasing the level of private seasonal baiting on private and public land is sound and aligns with known pressure points to increased dog attack, and further effort could be made to increase the capacity of private landholders to undertake coordinated control activities on public land. Additionally, further research and data collection is required to be able to properly assess the uptake and cost effectiveness of non-lethal measures and the contribution of on-farm practices to increased farm productivity / livestock protection.

If future requirements are placed on the program to reduce the length of time between trap inspections, then it is likely to be necessary within given budgets to put


more program effort into baiting to ensure current levels of dog take are maintained and, therefore, also ensuring there is not an overall increase in dog attacks.

Options for future approaches

Strategy development

The Wild Dog Control Program could sharpen the focus of control efforts and aid the determination of the program budget and the mix of control measures to guide operations across the State. There is a benefit in DEDJTR clarifying the obligations of government to undertake reasonable wild dog control measures. Escalating the importance of these actions within the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria provides the means to achieve this.

Program assessment and reporting

Victoria has developed a detailed system to describe, plan, execute and report on wild dog control activities on public land and is leading the way in the collection, analysis and communication of reported and public Wild Dog Control Program data. Opportunities to further improve processes to analyse information that is being collected to inform program delivery include establishing new indicators and moving towards improved seasonal reporting.

Enhancing operational flexibility

Effectively reducing the negative impacts of wild dogs can only be achieved if all land managers (public and private) work together as part of an integrated program using all available control techniques that are safe, effective, humane and environmentally sustainable.

The Wild Dog Control Program is encouraged to introduce Canid Pest Ejectors (CPE) and enable appropriately trained individual private landholders (who are impacted by wild dogs) to undertake and assist with baiting and trapping on neighbouring public land.

It is also suggested that, if it is decided to reduce the time a government agent may leave an animal alive in a trap used for wild dog control from a maximum of 72 hours to either 48 or 24 hours, the Wild Dog Control Program considers increasing the use of casuals to maintain service delivery commitments.

Revising the service delivery commitment protocol, that outlines that reactive control activities should continue for up to 30 days after the last livestock attack, could enable the redirection of resources into proactive control measures and improve the flexibility of responses to attacks by wild dogs. The extent to which this would be possible would subject to budget constraints.

Continuous improvement through research

There are opportunities to address gaps in knowledge with respect to: a) non-targets impacted by baiting and trapping, b) the impact of varying baiting regimes and the efficacy of using CPEs to control wild dogs on public land, c) the potential to use surveillance technologies to reduce the level of physical inspections of traps and d) the uptake and cost effectiveness of non-lethal measures.Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

Future design considerationsThere are several key design considerations that could be pursued to improve the operation of the Wild Dog Control Program. These are discussed below.

Strategies and objectives

The Wild Dog Control Program could sharpen the focus of control efforts and aid the determination of the program budget and the mix of control measures to guide operations across the State. In particular, there is an opportunity to clarify the preferred mix of reactive and proactive control measures.

Moreover, one of the key strategic issues to consider is the relative importance of reducing the overall dog population in the 3 kilometre buffer zone as against stopping dogs from travelling onto private properties. Additionally, there is a benefit in DEDJTR clarifying the obligations of government in undertaking reasonable wild dog control measures . Escalating the importance of these actions within the Action Plan for Managing Wild Dogs in Victoria provides the means to achieve this.

Program assessment and reporting

Opportunities to further improve processes to analyse information that is being collected to inform program delivery include:

moving towards greater seasonal reporting, and

incorporating into reporting processes a number of performance indicators developed in this report including: bait nights; trap nights or trap checks; and a range of input to output to outcome effectiveness indicators and regionally grouped indicators.

Enhancing operational flexibility

Greater operational flexibility and performance be created by pursuing a range of reforms, including:

enabling those not setting traps to inspect traps. This may involve reviewing legislative arrangements of related legislation such as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA);

reviewing workplace arrangements with a view to increasing the capacity of the program to more fully utilise casual labour in control activities, noting that this is limited to some extent by budget constraints. This may become particularly relevant if the trap inspection time is reduced from 72 to 48 or 24 hours;

revising the program’s service offer to private land owners, where consistent with the requirement to determine the government’s obligations. This has the potential to enable the redirection of resources into proactive control or other measures and reduce the requirement to respond to attacks by providing reactive trapping activities;

rapidly addressing impediments to the deployment of CPEs by the public program; and


enabling appropriately trained individual private landholders who are impacted to undertake baiting and trapping on neighbouring public land.

Additionally, there is benefit in reviewing current control measure settings in 12 months’ time to assess if observable trends emerge in relation to the level of control and wild dog attack.

Research

There are opportunities to address gaps in knowledge. Research could be undertaken to enable improved optimisation of alternative control measures and balancing of other policy objectives. Research could include:

identifying the levels of target and non-target species take of baiting programs;

examining the efficiency and effectiveness of targeting problem dogs with traps;

undertaking localised pilots to assess the impact of more intensive baiting regimes and the efficacy of CPEs;

exploring remote surveillance technologies to reduce the level of on-site inspections; and

undertaking further research and data collection to properly assess the uptake and cost effectiveness of non-lethal measures.

.


1.Stocktake of other jurisdictions Key Task: Document approaches, tools and technologies currently available for the management of wild dogs in Victoria, elsewhere in Australia and elsewhere internationally, alongside local operating conditions including but not limited to topography and legislation (desktop research)

1.1 Key Australian jurisdictions There is a wide diversity of approaches to wild dog management across jurisdictions. An overview of some of the key features of wild dog control arrangements across selected jurisdictions is provided in Table 1.

Some key points of differentiation with other states is that Victoria has the most centrally organised and operated public control program and is the only jurisdiction where there is a custom and practice for public control activities to be undertaken in response to attacks on private land.

Under the Management Zone Work Plans, DELWP has committed to the following response process for killed, maimed or harassed livestock:

a landholder visit by a wild dog controller where required, within 72 hours of all incident reports involving stock maimed, killed or harassed (subject to legal requirements for wild dog controllers to service baits or traps within the mandated 14/30 day and 72hr regulations respectively);

verification of stock death due to wild dog attack and wild dog movement;

provision of advice to landholders on immediate actions to be taken to mitigate further losses (i.e. livestock management, landholder control);

assessment of current control in the area and any modifications needed; and

implementation of additional control using reactive tools and techniques such as trapping, opportunistic shooting and baiting if required.

Also under the work plans reactive wild dog control services may be withdrawn 30 days after the last livestock attack, the provision of advice and proactive works in the surrounding region will continue.

In practice the outcome of these arrangements together with trap inspection requirements is that commonly the majority of a wild dog controller’s weekly roster comprises reactive trapping. Our discussions indicate that the level of reactive control provided is a function of a number of factors including:

reactive control inputs and outputs are more visible and tangible to the local community;

operational staff interpretation of the government’s obligation to undertake reasonable efforts of control;

the interaction of a range of associated regulatory requirements (such as trap inspection times and labour force arrangements) that require absolute compliance with trapping regulations within weekly labour force rostering; and


community expectations of individual wild dog controllers that are extremely difficult to manage under current circumstances without a definition of the role of government.

This is not to say that reactive control is the most efficient and effective response. A central issue in this report is the relative balance of reactive (trapping) and proactive (baiting) control and the extent to which existing arrangements affect the capacity of the program to alter this balance.

Victoria has a public control program that accounts for the major component of the jurisdiction’s overall direct control program activity.1 In part this reflects the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 requirements for public land managers to manage the pests that occupy its land and impact on its neighbours. In most other jurisdictions (directly reflecting the location of dogs on private land) private control accounts for most of the control activity with public measures being generally complementary and ancillary. In some jurisdictions, the costs of direct control are shared 50:50 between the landholder and the government.

In part, this reflects the scale and scope of land tenures and the nature of the wild dog problem in other jurisdictions. In jurisdictions, such as Western Australia and Queensland, farm size and distance from public land means there are greater incentives to undertake private control and there are more practical limitations to some forms of on-ground public control. Reflecting some of these practicalities there are, in some cases, fewer considerations affecting the design of program operations — with wider use of lethal traps and longer inspection times. However, some of these arrangements will cease in the future under national operational protocols.

In a number of jurisdictions there is greater local autonomy on setting and delivering program priorities on public and private land, especially where co-contribution of funds is realised through levies and other mechanisms. This reflects the broader scale of farming in some areas and in the case of NSW, broader institutional changes that have resulted in the delivery of most public land management activities through Local Land Boards.

Victoria also has a number of operational considerations that affect the design of the public control program, these include among others:

community expectations and requirements to undertake reactive measures in preference to proactive measure;

limits on the use of some control measures; and

defined areas in which operations can be undertaken.

Reflecting the significance of public control effort, Victoria has the most comprehensive data on the wild dog control inputs, outputs and outcomes. In most jurisdictions there is very little or no public data on key program operations and outcomes.

1 In 2014-15 the public program cost in the order of $4.5 million. In comparison Lightfoot 2010 estimated private expenditures on control in the order of $4 million per annum. Since then through the Baiting Coordinator project additional funds in the order of $400,000 per annum have been leveraged from AWI levy payers nationally


Table 1 Summary of the management arrangement for wild dogs across selected jurisdictions

Victoria New South Wales

Western Australia

Queensland

Nature of wild dog program

Topography Predominantly hilly/alpine

Hilly and Rangelands

Perception public land contributing

to private land predation in

Great Dividing Range areas

Broad-acre range land

Rangelands, broad-acre, hilly

and flat

Farm type Sheep and cattle Sheep and cattle Sheep and cattle Sheep and cattle

Legislation and responsibilities

Public land responsibility Yes Yes Yes Yes

Legislated responsibility for private landholders to undertake control

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Responsibility for public control program on public land following attacks on private land

No

DELWP determines what level of service

delivery is required with

respect to reports of wild

dog attacks.

No No No

Private control activities allowed on public land

Yes, 3km buffer No, under Schedule 1 and

Schedule 2 Public Land Act

No Yes, on stock routes with appropriate

authority

Restrictions on private control on public land

3km buffer with no control measure exclusion

NA Only authorised officer allowed

to bait on public land

?

Nil tenure Yes Yes Yes Yes

Governance arrangements and reporting

Policy framework Action Plan- (A policy framework

sits above it)

Policy Statement New strategy about to be

released. Good neighbour

Wild Dog Strategy – weed and pest animal

strategy sits



Western Australia

Queensland

approach – control in borders of

managed public land estate and

whole public estate where the affected area is small

above it

Operational institution DELWP Land Services Boards

Department of Parks and Wildlife — public land

Department of Agriculture and

Food, Recognised Biosecurity Groups—

private land

QLD Parks and Wildlife Service

and local government

Policy institution DEDJTR Department of Industries – Agriculture

portfolio


Food


Fisheries

Accountable portfolio Minister

Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture

Operational measurement and reporting

Yes, real time in-field

Yes, post field

Reposition and developing new KPI framework – ha of area under

plan and reduction in

report incident

No, for parks and wildlife

Varies by DSG because of

various funding requirements.

RBG produce range of output

measures.

No, State collation may be some local measurement

Public performance assessment

Quarterly No No No

Key performance indicators Multiple indicators under Quarterly report. Primary indicator

reduction in reported do

Hectare under plan (and cost

sharing)

Reduction in report predation

Only for specific RBG program

None



Western Australia

Queensland

attacks

Stakeholder feedback Advisory Committee,

Regional forums

Yes, Local Community

Advisory Groups Feed into Local

Board and Chairs Local Board form

State-wide Board.

No, but new Action Plan

recommends an Advisory Board be established

QDog, Local government industry and

environmental reps – report to invasive plants

and animals committee of

Biosecurity Qld

Operating arrangements

Zone management Yes Yes Yes Local government

establish local control groups.

Biosecurity officers act as coordinators

Public delivery mechanism Yes,

The state Wild Dog Control Program and

WDMZs service offer

Local Land Service Groups

Coordination mechanism on private land to

DSGs. RBGS same process

Coordination of local

government

Practice change program Yes, baiting coordinator

project

Training for farmers in

control techniques

Funded through AWI

Desire to reduce the reliance on local manage

services and need for more private

activity

Run in conjunction with RBGs and DSG.

DAFWA extension

program where there is no

establish group

Predator control days

run by industry. Extension and

communications provided by

Biosecurity Queensland

and local government and industry

Public coordination of public and private baiting programs

Yes yes Yes Yes

Use of flexible labour and contractors

Yes Yes, Land services Boards manages

contract

Yes, but varies by Regional

Group

Unclear

Public control has surge force Yes No, but national Yes, but varies ?Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches


Western Australia

Queensland

capability Parks do pest control and land

management services t

by Regional Group

Control measures

Public trapping Yes Yes Yes, southern range lands –

licensed technicians – employed by

RBG and DSG via Royalties for

Regions Funding

Yes, (Qld Parks and Wildlife Service and

Local government)

Maximum inspection time for trapping

72 hr 24 or 48 not 72 more expensive more overtime on weekends

None but must have strychnine

on the trap. Private land must have completed restricted chemical training

Promote use of strychnine on traps where

can’t be checked in 24

hours.

Canid pest ejectors used by public controllers

No, but likely to be available in

next few months

Trialling No, but likely to be available in

next few months

Some local governments – but restricted

because of concentration

of 1080

Public shooting used by public controllers

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Public baiting program operated

Yes Yes Yes, in southern Rangeland

Yes, where assessed as safe

to do so

Private bait provision Yes Yes No, Landholder provides own

meat. But private

landholder can do own injecting

after training

Yes, provide meat and

authorised officers prepare

the baits. Signed

agreements are required for each baiting

operation



Western Australia

Queensland

Spring and Autumn seasonal baiting

Yes Yes, Yes Yes

Remote ground baiting Yes Yes Yes Yes

Aerial baiting Yes Yes Yes, predominantly

in northern Rangeland

(Pilbara and Kimberly).

Decreased in some southern

Rangeland because

considered not as effective.

Yes, not less in south east

Queensland

Wild dog attack response management

Reporting mechanism Direct to WDC Report to local land services –

phone1300/email

In Rangeland direct contact

RBGs.

In Agriculture zone contact

DAFWA

If part of DSG speak to DSG

and local controller

Yes at local government

level

Response time 24 hours Depends on what the strategy is for

the Local Plan e.g. some may

require only advice.

No depends on individual group

No

Recording of incident 24 hours No, but encouraged

Yes, in some regions

No

Recording of response Yes Yes, but not consistently

applied across Local Boards

Yes, Spatial system incident

reports - ‘Dogger Logger’

by DAFWA Biosecurity

Officer liaising with DSG and

No



Western Australia

Queensland

RBGs

Reported number of attacks Yes, through the Dogbytes database

No, system of central recording

Yes, individual through Pastoral lease reporting requirements –

but no state-wide number

reported

Some local government

key data on the number of complaints

Program costs and funding

Public program expenditure $5 million Not known – surveyed in lead

up to last election likely to

be half the expenditure

Victoria

Approximately $4.3 million

Not known

Private program expenditure Approximately

$5 million

Not known Approximately $5 million

Not known

Cost sharing of direct public delivery costs

Yes, to a limited degree through

the Baiting Coordinator Project No

Yes, depends on area size. Varies

from plan to plan includes services

in public and private

Yes, DSG can raise rates and

match dollar for dollar

No for RBG

Local government

provide meat without cost. Subsidise cost

of aircraft

Performance of wild dog program

Is the level of reported attack rising or falling

Generally falling Focus is on strategy

approach not outcome metrics

Only values losses - $6

million impact in range lands-

incrementally increased -

peaked in 2011 and started to

rise again.

Not known

Number of dog dispatched Known for public trapping and

shooting

Whole of program

estimated using take assumptions

Not known Not known Not known


1.2 International — Coyote control in the USAArrangements for the control of pest coyotes vary across United States of America jurisdictions. Coyotes are a native animal and come under the jurisdiction of agriculture and wildlife services both federally and at a state level. In most states, coyotes are not declared game but a licence is required to hunt or trap.

Interventions can include non-lethal and lethal interventions (Table 2). In some states there is a preference for using lethal means where predation has occurred. Moreover, most states adopt a hierarchy system of intervention such that there is a preference for more intervention as the type of incident increases in seriousness from sighting through to predation and threatening behaviour towards humans.

Table 2: Types of coyote control measures

Non-Lethal Lethal

Change pasture being grazed Leg hold traps

Shift lambing, calving, or kidding period Snares

Select less vulnerable livestock Callings/shooting

Herder Dogs Denning and calling/shooting

Night-penning Denning

Shed-lambing, calving, or kidding. CPEs

Guard animals (dogs, donkeys, llamas) Livestock Protection Collar

Electronic guard (sirens and lights) Aerial gunning

Electric fencing

Woven Wire fencing

Source: Louney, Houben and Eggborn 1997

The provision of bounties varies: some states operate bounty systems, for example, North Dakota, Utah ($50 per head) and Missouri, some local jurisdictions of certain Canadian provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan; in other states such as Kentucky there are no bounties. There is debate over the efficacy of bounties and jurisdictional legislatures have debated their introduction as a means of encouraging local participation and control. However, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Service note that bounties are not a successful tool because they do not reduce coyote populations and redirect resources from more effective control activities by the agency. There are also concerns that bounties can encourage inhumane take, with local less skilled hunters using predominately shooting as their control methodology as opposed to highly skilled professional coyote control services.

There are restrictions on the use of control measures. In some jurisdictions a hunting licence is required to undertake shooting, trapping and snaring. Use of lethal toxicants is regulated federally through the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and can only be used by authorised USDA Wildlife Service controllers, but their use is restricted by state laws – some allow the use of lethal toxicants whereas other do not. For example, CPEs are allowed in some states such as Virginia but not in others such as Kentucky.


In some states these restrictions on use reflect differences in management strategies between states. There appears to be two broad groups:

preference for non-lethal measures — this is more common in states where coyotes are considered a public nuisance problem rather than a farm production problem. The preference appears to be more focussed on targeted removal of individual problem coyotes that might challenge humans or attack animals, based on the philosophy that once problem coyotes are removed the remaining pack will revert to cautious and human avoiding behaviours.

targeted lethal measures — in a number of states where coyote predation is a more pressing agricultural problem (particularly those with the highest concentration of sheep farming such as Ohio, West Virginia and Virginia) there are coordinated programs of coyote control.

Knowlton et al.,(1999) concluded coyote depredation rates appear to be influenced by sheep management practices, coyote biology and behaviour, environmental factors, and depredation management programs. They found that successful control requires the use of multiple techniques within an integrated program and concluded:

local population reduction can provide temporary relief to sheep operators, but only until the local coyote population compensates for the removals and fills vacant territories;

the more focused removals are to the area of depredations, the shorter the duration of the effect; and

depredation relief resulting from a coyote population reduction program should be considered transitory, unless the removal program is maintained.

Various commentaries on coyote control in the United States indicate there is debate, among others, over the focus of programs including;

the true population of coyote and extent of control required;

the effect of take on the structure and territory packs and effects on livestock attack; and

the use of bounties to encourage take.

1.2.1 Virginia Cooperative Coyote Control Program (VCCCP)The USDA Wildlife Service operates control programs involving integrated pest management in Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio. These states have relatively higher densities of sheep farming to other states and more issues with coyote predation.

It is a cooperative program operated by the USDA Wildlife Services with costs shared 50:50 between the USDA Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services.

In 2014, the USDA Wildlife Service provided direct control to nearly 200 livestock farms across 53 counties - 285 sheep, 81 calves, and 32 goats were verified killed by coyotes on those farms.

The program operates two forms of intervention:

Preventive control — occurs seasonally on farms with historical incidence of predation. This involves the removal of territorial coyotes between January and April before pups are born. In 2012-13, 160 landholders were assisted. Of the 87 landholders that had coyotes removed, none experienced subsequent predation in that year.


Corrective control — occurs at all times through the year in response to reported predation. In 2012-13, controls were implemented on 73 farms.

The program has adopted an integrated predation management strategy where any or all practical and legal methods are applied simultaneously or sequentially to prevent or reduce predation. Landholders can implement non-lethal (e.g. fencing, shed lambing and other husbandry) and some lethal methods (e.g. shooting, trapping and snaring) and usually request USDA Wildlife Service assistance when predation becomes overwhelming or preventative measures are warranted.

Since the program commenced in 1990, control measures have shifted from trapping to the use of CPEs which in 2013 accounted for 65 per cent of the coyotes killed by the USDA Wildlife Service in Virginia (Table 3). Fox (2014a) reported the program killed 341 coyotes in 2013 and this represented a tiny proportion of an increasing coyote population and is dwarfed by the estimated 24,000 plus coyotes killed by hunters. Nonetheless Fox (2014a) emphasised the focus of the program was on dispatching problem coyotes and under taking preventative control:

Preventive control is implemented primarily from January through April on farms with historic predation. Preventive control strategies remove territorial coyotes before pups are born, which decreases the predatory behavior of coyotes during the lambing season (Wagner and Conover 1999). Of the 160 livestock producers assisted, 87 farms with historic coyote predation losses had coyotes removed to prevent predation. Of the farms receiving preventive control, 41 were sheep farms, 44 cattle farms, and 2 were goat farms. These farms had no livestock killed by predators in FY2013.

CPEs are more efficient than other measures: traps and snares must be inspected daily whereas CPEs and Livestock Protection Collars (LPCs) require inspection every 7 days (Louney, Houben and Eggborn 1997).

Livestock Protection Collars (LPC) are used in specific circumstances where CPE use is constrained as a result of use regulations and predation is a pressing problem. LPCs also contain restricted chemicals and their use is also regulated by the EPA. In 2013, LPCs use resulted in only one coyote removal in Virginia.


Table 3: Lethal methods used by Wildlife Services in Virginia 2013 (n=341)

Lethal method Number of coyote removed

CPEs 220 (65%)

Snares 100 (29%)

Foot-hold traps 12 (4%)

Calling/shooting 8 (2%)

Livestock Protection Collar (LPC)

1 (<1%)

Source: Fox 2014a

Education and extension are an important component of the program with the USDA Wildlife Service providing advice to landholders on on-farm management practices. In 2013-14, more than 1,200 people attended 24 educational events run by the program on coyote ecology and damage management.

The VCCCP has resulted in a general reduction in the incidence of livestock loss to coyote predation and an increase in the number of coyotes removed from properties. The lagged pattern of predation closely maps the pattern of coyote removal in the previous year Figure 1.

Figure 1 Number of sheep killed and coyotes removed in Virginia

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

20130

100

200

300

400

500

600

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Coyotes removedSheep per farm

(note below - sheep killed per farm on right hand y axis)Source: prepared from data provided by Fox 2014

According to Fox 2014b, however, there is some evidence that removal of coyotes from the local pack group can have counter effects on predation such that increased removal increases predation over the short term as removal impacts pack structures, breeding pairs and learned scavenging behaviours.

The success of the program has been in spite of evidence that the coyote population is continuing to rise. The rise in the coyote population is evidenced by:


the substantial increase in the removal of coyotes by the program and by private hunting. For example, in 1993 less than 1000 coyotes were removed annually by private hunters and by 2013 close to 24,000 coyotes were removed annually by private hunters; and

49 new farms were assisted with livestock protection by the program in 2012-13.

2.


3. Assessment of efficacyKey Task: Assesses 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

3.1 Key points

Overall program

performance

Overall performance was assessed over the three year period 2012/13 to 2014/15 Inputs: The level of baiting has increased over the three year period 2012/13 to 2014/15

with a reduction in trapping. Both DEWLP and community baiting has increased. Outputs: It is difficult to gauge trends in the effectiveness of the two key control

measures (as measured by dogs killed/dogs trapped to baits laid/traps set) over the last four years as the data does not exhibit a statistically significant trend upwards or downwards.

Outcomes: The effectiveness of the two key control measures (baits and traps) in producing outcomes (i.e. less dog attacks and less livestock destroyed) has improved over the last three years – mostly from improvements from 2013/14 to 2014/15. However, this improvement should be interpreted cautiously due to the short time period we are analysing and the known seasonality issues.

Regional program

performance

Regional performance was assessed over 8 quarters from Summer 2013 to Spring 2015. Four clusters from the 14 regions were used for comparison purposes. Inputs: The level of baiting is highly seasonal (higher in Autumn and Spring) and has

remained at a similar level across most clusters. There is no statistical significant trend upwards or downwards in any of the regional clusters for traps checked.

Outputs: There is a statistically significant upward trend over time in the effectiveness of baits in the far Eastern region (Regional Cluster 1). This is not the case in other regional clusters. There are no statistically significant trends with respect to trapping effectiveness.

Outcomes: There is no statistically significant trend upwards or downwards for all clusters in terms of confirmed livestock killed and dog attacks. With the exception of the region just north of Maffra (Regional Cluster 2) which shows a statistically significant positive improvement, there is no statistically significant trend upwards or downwards for the other key regions in the effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes (as measured by confirmed livestock deaths per 10,000 bait/trap nights and reported dog attacks per 10,000 bait/trap nights).

Optimising control

activities

Mix of control activities Costs: The cost of a trap for each day is much higher than for a ground bait (as measured

by cost per bait/trap night). Scale: More baits can typically be placed than setting traps over a given time period. Kill rate: Traps have a higher kill rate than ground baits (in terms of kill per bait/trap).

Impact of moving from 72 to 24/48 hours

for trap inspections

Impact on mix of control measures: Moving to 48 or 24 hour trap inspections make it difficult to achieve all week coverage by trapping and therefore reduces wild dog kills from traps.

Options to change operations: There are a range of options to increase wild dog kills to cover the shortfall left by lower kills from traps – including increasing baiting and weekend work.

Impact on costs: Increased baiting is the lowest cost option to compensate for lower trapping levels. However, baiting may not be as successful in targeting the dogs that are killing livestock and cannot always be applied in a timely manner because of approval and notification processes. In contrast, weekend work enables all week trapping but is much more costly. However, the cost of weekend work can be mitigated to some degree with changes to operational practices.


3.2 Framework for assessing efficacy and examining potential improvements

The Wild Dog Control Program uses a range of lethal control measures with the aim of reducing dog attacks and livestock losses. This is summarised in Figure 2. We focus on key lethal control measures given absence of detailed data on the distribution and level of use of non-lethal controls. We also include analysis of key output measures including estimates of dog take — dogs trapped and estimated bait take.

In the following sections we examine the performance of the Wild Dog Control Program with reference to inputs, outputs and outcomes – both at an overall level and at a regional level. We do this by considering performance measures outlined in the Directions Statement for the Wild Dog Management Program in Victoria and our own analyses.

Our assessment of the efficacy of the program is limited to the period 2012/13 to 2014/15. Differences in approaches to recording of data pre 2012 mean that pre 2012 data are not directly comparable across inputs and outcomes or across years.

While our analysis at an overall program level will be based on annual data, our analysis at a regional level will be more disaggregated and have the following features:

the data are rearranged into seasonal periods (i.e. summer, autumn, winter, spring). This better aligns with the periods of pack reproduction cycles such as mating, and whelping and farm system activities such as lambing (i.e. autumn and spring); and

the period of analysis is from summer 2013 to spring 2015 (2 years of quarterly data). In some cases, it is from autumn 2014 to spring 2015 since summer 2013 does not have data for December 2013.

Therefore, while we are able to make comparisons across three years of data at an aggregate level, our regional analysis is restricted to two years of data. This is because the Dogbytes database only contains reliable data from summer 2013/14 onwards.

Figure 2: Key program inputs, outputs and outcomes

Baits laid

Inputs: control measures

Traps deployed

Shooting

Aerial baits

Ground baits

Baits taken

Dogs trappedReduced

Dog attacks

Reduced Livestock

losses

Dogs shot

Outputs: Dogs destroyed

Outcomes

3.3 Overall program performance3.3.1 Overall program inputs: control measuresThe current approach to wild dog management comprises a mix of control measures with ground baiting (community and DELWP) and trapping constituting the large majority of Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

activity over the most recent three years (Figure 3). Noticeably, there has been an increase in community ground baiting and government ground baiting over this three-year period. This has been accompanied by a decline in DELWP trapping. Shooting contributes a very small amount of the overall control measures and is not illustrated in Figure 3.

The increase in baiting has resulted from 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.

Note that our assessment of statistical significance for overall program measures considered t-stats at the 95 per cent confidence level (2-tailed).

Figure 3: Change in program effort 2012/13 – 2014/5

Source: Marsden Jacob estimates based on DEDJTR and DELWP data

The change in program focus and increase in baiting has also been made possible by an increase in government program expenditures which have increased from close to $4.5 million in 2012-13 to just under $5 million in 2014-15.

Figure 4: Change in program expenditures

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Annu

al co

st of

pro

gram

Cost of Program Delivery Cost of Community Participation*


* Community participation is tracked in hours and a hourly rate of $38 per hour has been applied to monetise the value community participation. The hourly rate of $38 has been sourced from the ABS as the average hourly wage of a public administrator (NSW)

The overall increase in baiting and increased involvement by the community in baiting over the period 2012/13 to 2014/15 is consistent with the relevant strategic objectives outlined in the Directions Statement and performance against these objectives – relevant for strategic objective 3 and 6 (Box 1).


Box 1: Performance against strategic objectives that are program input related

Strategic objective 3: Within 1 year (2013) there will be an increase of 10% in baits deployed within the program

Baits are deployed by DELWP as well as the local farmers and can be placed on the ground or dropped through aerial baiting. The total number of baits laid by both DELWP and the local community is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Number of baits laid

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Num

ber o

f bait

s laid

DEPI Baits Laid Community Baits Laid

There was a 23% increase in the number of baits laid between 2012-13 (45,066 baits laid) and 2014-15 (55,614 baits laid), derived from increases in both DELWP (21% increase) and the local resident (25% increase). The increase exceeded the objective of a 10% annual increase in baits deployed.

Strategic objective 6: Within 3 years (by 2015) there will be a 20% increase in the effort contributed to the program by partners

The effort contributed to the program can be measured by the hours that have been contributed to the program by resources outside of DELWP. The external resources are part of the Community Wild Dog Control (CWDC) group and can be classified as coordinators or participants.

Figure 6: CWDC hours contributed to assist the control of wild dogs

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Annu

al ho

urs c

ontri

buted

Wild dog control coordinators Wild dog control participants


3.3.2 Overall effectiveness of inputs in producing outputs It is difficult to gauge trends in the effectiveness of the two key control measures (baits and traps) over the last four years as the data does not exhibit a statistically significant trend upwards or downwards. In part, this is likely to be the result of the short time period over which we have estimated trends. Effectiveness is illustrated in Figure 7 for baits and in performance against Direction Statement strategic objective 4 for traps (Box 2).

Effectiveness of inputs in producing outputs is defined as the ratio of number of baits taken by wild dogs or dogs trapped to the number of baits laid or traps set.

It is important to consider the effectiveness of deploying baits and traps in killing dogs in the context of overall program effectiveness as there is an uncertain relationship between the numbers of dogs killed and livestock attacked using the data available to us.

It is also important to note that as dogs are killed over time through control activities, it is possible that the effectiveness of control measures will fall as it becomes increasingly more difficult to kill the remaining dogs. Indeed, it is possible that some dogs learn to avoid some control measures.

Figure 7: Baits effectiveness – overall

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 (part)

DELW

P ba

iting

effe

ctive

ness

(tak

e ra

te)

Num

ber o

f bai

ts la

id (a

ll ba

iting

)

Total number of baits laid (LHS) Effectiveness of DELWP baiting (RHS)

Source: WDCAC reports and MJA analysis of Dogbytes data.

Note:

1. Effectiveness is a measure of baits taken by wild dogs per bait laid. Effectiveness in the graph only refers to DELWP ground baiting as data on effectiveness is not available for community baiting. It is assumed that if a bait is taken by a wild dog the dog is killed.

2. Effectiveness has been calculated as the proportion of baits taken to baits laid (sourced from DELWP data) multiplied by the proportion of baits taken by dogs. The proportion of baits taken by dogs was estimated by DELWP at 10 per cent on average. This is discussed more in the notes to Table 4. Therefore, effectiveness over the period 2012/13 to 2015/16 (part) only varies across years because of variations in the proportion of baits taken to baits laid since the proportion of baits


taken by dogs has been fixed at 10 per cent as there is no actual observable data available for this variable.

3. Partial 2015/16 data (first six months of this period) has been included to measure 2015/16 effectiveness. Number of baits laid has not been included as the year has not been completed.

Box 2: Performance against strategic objectives that are program output related

Strategic objective 4: Within 1 year (2013) there will be an increase of 10% in the effectiveness of traps set to capture wild dogs

The effectiveness of traps is similar for 2012/13 and 2013/14 and then increases in 2014/15 before falling in 2015/16 (partial data). Effectiveness is a measure of dogs trapped to traps set. This result means that the strategic objective of an increase in the first year of 10% was not met and it does not appear to be met over the four year period from 2012/13 to 2014/15.

Figure 8: Trapping effectiveness - overall

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16(part)

Trap

effe

ctive

ness

(cap

ture

rate

)

Num

ber o

f tra

ps se

t

Number of traps set (LHS) Effectiveness of traps (RHS)

Source: WDCAC reports and MJA analysis of Dogbytes data.

Noting the statistical limitations to our analysis of trends in baiting levels, our stakeholder conversations indicate that the increase in baiting levels over the most recent three years 2012/13 to 2014/15 and improvement in effectiveness for baiting from 2013/14 to 2015/16 (Figure 7) has resulted from a range of factors, including improved strategic targeting of wild dog control measures. Although reactive trapping control continues in response to incident reports, the timing and location of proactive baiting and trapping has become more targeted and more importantly better communicated with public and private control activities more aligned and coordinated.

Another critical component of improved delivery has been improvements to the workforce undertaking the public control measures. These changes include:

increasing the use of casual staff to increase the capacity to contribute towards increases in seasonal activity and targeted local activity;


improving workplace arrangements by enabling more use of proactive control measures and improving transparency of operations in a more timely and efficient manner; and

improving capabilities through training in new control technologies and improving communication methods and skills.

This includes positive program changes such as:

increasing and shifting the areas of baiting to better target the source of wild dogs;

seasonal planning of community baiting programs to align the timing of baiting to better reflect the effect of seasonal conditions on wild dog risk, breeding cycles and bait lifespan; and

improving the timing and duration of monthly baiting cycles to better reflect community needs.

Key mechanisms to lever this shift have been:

zone management planning;

community consultation on the plans and public control activities; and

improved private access to baits (particularly fresh meat baits) including accreditation, training and bait provision.

The Baiting Coordinator Project (BCP) has been a key project delivery vehicle for these mechanisms. The BCP estimates that over the life of the program:

there were 17 community baiting groups;

147 landholders participated in the baiting programs covering 120,000 hectares; and

participants laid 60,000 baits in areas where previously there had been little or no community baiting on private land.

Since its inception in 2012, the BCP has enabled;

119 members to complete AgVet Course (Agricultural Chemical User Permit) training;

147 members to receive 1080 endorsement;

95 members to receive trap training; and

GIS mapping products to be provided to better capture and record community control efforts.

We note that while the program has shifted to a state-wide focus, progress on monitoring the initiatives is more advanced in some control regions than others. In particular there remains a substantial gap in some aspects of program delivery such as recording and monitoring program activities in the North West of the State.

While there have been anecdotal improvements in the wild dog controller work-force, this is an area for ongoing focus given the importance of interaction between wild dog controllers and landholders. This includes continuing to build trust relationships with landholders, improving proactive communication and negotiation, and improving transparency of workplace activities and performance.

Improvements have also occurred in the effort directed at broader community relationship management and coordination. As noted earlier, a major improvement in the effectiveness of wild dog control lies in the increased focus of operational staff on community engagement,


together with the appointment of the Community Engagement Manager. The Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) staff have played a major role in improving community engagement and communication. Across the board, many stakeholders indicated that these appointments have had a profound effect on organisational and general program performance by improving program transparency and capacity to negotiate, adjust and target public and private effort.

3.3.3 Overall effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes Livestock deaths and injuries from wild dogs (note most are unconfirmed causes) fell over the period 2012/13 to 2014/15 (Figure 9) yet there was a similar number of dog attacks over the same period (Box 3). What this means is unclear as the timeframe is short and there are factors other than wild dog control measures that can influence wild dog attacks (e.g. rainfall, wild dog breeding conditions).

The effectiveness of the two key control measures (ground baits and traps) in producing outcomes (i.e. dogs destroyed and reduced livestock losses) has improved over the last three years – mostly from improvements from 2013/14 to 2014/15. Moreover, there has been a decrease in the number of confirmed livestock deaths per bait/trap night between 2013/14 and 2014/15 (Figure 11). However, we believe that this improvement should be interpreted cautiously due to the short time period analysed and the known seasonality issues.

Additionally, we undertook statistical analysis (e.g. regression analysis) to examine the relationship between confirmed livestock deaths and the two key input variables (baits laid and traps checked). This analysis was undertaken using regression analysis2. The analysis was undertaken for the aggregate Victorian data set and also for some of the regions. The regression analysis was undertaken in various ways including:

Single variable equations (e.g. livestock deaths as the dependent variable and baits laid as the independent variable);

Multivariate equations (e.g. livestock deaths as the dependent variable and baits laid and traps checked as the independent variables);

Incorporating a one season lag in the analysis since baiting and trapping typically will have an effect sometime in the future on livestock deaths and current levels of DEWLP trapping and baiting are often reflective of very recent livestock death incidents;

Incorporating seasonality via a dummy variable where appropriate where community baiting is undertaken.

This analysis did not reveal any logical statistically significant relationships at either an aggregate level or regional level. Moreover, while some of the relationships were statistically significant at the aggregate level, this was not considered a logical outcome because:

In the cases in which there were statistically significant relationships the analysis indicated that higher levels of baiting or trapping was leading to higher levels of livestock deaths. This is illogical since control measures are not likely to increase livestock deaths. Rather, the result most likely reflects randomness in attack patterns and the fact control activities increase in response to increased attacks and there can be a long time (perhaps beyond the timeframe of the dataset) before clear long term decrease in activity occurs.

2 t-stats were used to consider statistical significance at the 95 per cent confidence level (2-tailed).Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

In many cases the regression analysis at the regional level produced no statistically significant relationships and where there were statistically significant relationships the results were, again, counterintuitive.

It is likely that the same analysis would benefit from a longer time series and there is a benefit in undertaking similar analysis at some time in the future. It is also likely that there are other factors not included in the regression modelling that are impacting the results. For example, the effectiveness of baits is impacted by wet weather in localised areas.

Figure 9: Livestock deaths from wild dogs – overall

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Numb

er of

Live

stock

Kille

d/M

aimed

(un

confi

rmed

)


Box 3: Performance against strategic objectives that are program output related

Strategic objective 2: After 3 years (2015) the number of reported dog attacks each year is 15% less than the number in previous years

Incidents of dog attacks have been recorded since 2012/13 including details about the location and livestock involved in the attacks. This information is shown below in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Dog attack reports – overall

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Wild

Dog

Atta

ck A

nnua

l Tot

al

Total Reports Properties Involved

There has been a slight decrease in the number of reported dog attacks between 2012/13 (607 reported attacks) to 2014/15 (591 reported attacks). This equates to a 3% drop across the two year period. The number of attacks in 2013/14 was 807. We note our previous comments on drawing conclusions from these movements.


Figure 11: Effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes – overall

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

2

4

6

8

10

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Lives

tock

dea

th p

er 10

,000 b

ait/tr

ap ni

ghts

Dog a

ttack

per

10,00

0 bait

/trap

nigh

ts

Dog attacks per 10,000 bait/trap night (LHS)Livestock deaths per 10,000 bait/trap night (RHS)

Notes: It is assumed that each bait laid is checked after 26.8 nights on average and a wild dog controller has, on average, 15 traps in place in a typical working week. Also note that in the graph it is assumed that a bait does not deteriorate over the 26.8 nights such that it becomes ineffective (e.g. due to weather).

3.4 Regional program performance3.4.1 Regional zones for comparisonFour regional clusters were developed in consultation with DEDJTR and DEWLP to enable the comparison of high level program data (Figure 12). This involved grouping the current fourteen zones into four clusters to account for commonality in scale, topography, and program activities and farming over lay within zones. This allows for a more appropriate comparison across Victoria since the four zones were constructed taking into consideration that wild dogs will move across the current fourteen zones and control measures in one zone may impact outcomes in another zone that is close by.

Note that our assessment of statistical significance in the regional program performance section of the report considered t-stats at the 95 per cent confidence level (2-tailed).


Figure 12: Regional management zones and clusters

Regional Cluster 1

Regional Cluster 2

Regional Cluster 3

Regional Cluster 4

3.4.2 Regional program inputs: control measuresThe overall level of baiting (community and DELWP) is seasonal in nature with higher levels in autumn and spring (Figure 13). Community baiting is clearly seasonal, occurring in Spring and Autumn (Figure 14).

In contrast, the timing of DELWP public baiting is much less seasonal (Figure 15) with Regional Cluster 1 exhibiting a statistically significant downward trend in DELWP baiting levels – all others clusters do not have statistically significant trend.


Figure 13: Overall baits laid – by region

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Tota

l Bait

s Laid

Regional Cluster 1 Regional Cluster 2 Regional Cluster 3 Regional Cluster 4

Notes: includes DELWP ground baiting, community ground baiting and aerial baiting.

Figure 14: Community baiting – by region

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Tota

l Bait

s Laid



Figure 15: DELWP ground baits laid – by region

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Grou

nd Ba

its La

id


Trapping does not follow a seasonal pattern (Figure 16). The lack of seasonality reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of trapping is reactive and occurring continually throughout the year in response to landholder reports of attacks, and that only a very small number of traps are set as a proactive measure.

Noticeably, there is no statistical significant trend upwards or downwards in any of the clusters for traps checked.

Figure 16: Traps checked – by region

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Trap

s che

cked


Notes: Traps checked rather than trap sets has been used to reflect trapping activity since it provides a better reflection of the amount of time that traps are in operation as traps have to be checked no greater


than 72 hours under the current exemption. We note further that trap nights could also be used in lieu of traps checked and would produce a very similar looking graph to Figure 16.

A number of factors may explain the differences in the seasonal approach to trapping and baiting:

work practices determining a baseline of control. In each region, controllers undertake trapping as the core labour activity. The work undertaken by a wild dog controller in a zone in any given week is determined by the requirement on them to be 100 per cent compliant with the regulations, the associated practicalities of checking each trap at no more than 72 hours after setting, and that work is only undertaken during the week (Monday to Friday). All wild dog controllers are allocated an annual target for baiting that must be completed;

reported attacks are not highly seasonal and as a result reactive control is not seasonal (Figure 20);

the number of traps deployed is largely a function of reported dog attacks since traps are typically deployed in response to reports by property owners of attacks; and

the close proximity of control activities between zones in the North East — control activities in the Mitta Mitta and Ovens and Alexandra and Mansfield zones are in close proximity to one another and control activities within one zone are considered by the program to impact on neighbouring zones.

3.4.3 Regional effectiveness of inputs in producing outputs In terms of regional clusters, there is a statistically significant upward trend over time in the effectiveness of baits in Regional Cluster 1. This is not the case in other regional clusters. Figure 17 illustrates the change in effectiveness in each of the clusters over time. One of the issues in examining trends is the short time period from which to draw solid conclusions.

The effectiveness of baits has been measured by the ratio of DELWP ground baits taken by wild dogs to baits laid.


Figure 17: Ground baits taken by wild dogs per baits laid – by region

0%1%1%2%2%3%3%4%4%5%

2013/14Summer

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Ratio

of g

roun

d ba

its ta

ken b

y wild

dog

s to

grou

nd ba

its la

id


Notes: The graph only includes 2 months of data for summer 2013/14.

Unlike baiting effectiveness, there is no statistically significant upward or downward trend for any of the four regional clusters in the effectiveness of trapping over time. The change in trapping effectiveness over time is contained in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Dogs trapped per traps checked – by region

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Ratio

of d

ogs t

rapp

ed to

trap

chec

ks



3.4.4 Regional effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomesThe number of confirmed livestock killed and dog attacks by regional cluster over the period are shown in Figure 19 and Figure 20 respectively. Additionally, Figure 21 and Figure 22 illustrate the effectiveness of inputs (DELWP ground baiting and trapping) in producing outcomes (less livestock deaths and/or reported dog attacks).

For each of the four regional clusters there is no statistically significant trend upwards or downwards3 in the numbers of confirmed livestock killed and dog attacks. However, Regional Cluster 2 is statistically significant in terms of the effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes for both confirmed livestock deaths per 10,000 bait/trap nights and reported dog attacks per 10,000 bait/trap nights). This is not the case for other regional clusters.

The effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes illustrates how effective the control strategy could be in delivering desired outcomes. For example, a positive outcome is for less inputs to be required to deliver a similar outcome over time. In other words, there is the same amount of livestock deaths or dog attacks with less baiting and trapping effort. A positive outcome could also be less livestock deaths or dog attacks with the same baiting and trapping effort.

Therefore, there is a positive trend in the effectiveness of inputs producing outcomes in Regional Cluster 2 as less livestock are being killed for the same amount of bait/trap nights.

Figure 19: Livestock deaths – by region

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Confi

rmed

Live

stock

Kille

d/M

aimed


3 At a 95 per cent confidence level.Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

Figure 20: Dog attack reports – by region

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015Spring

Numb

er of

Rep

orts


Figure 21: Effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes – livestock deaths by region

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015SpringCo

nfirm

ed Li

vesto

ck d

eath

s per

10,00

0 trap

/bait

nig

ht



Figure 22: Effectiveness of inputs in producing outcomes – reported dog attacks by region

0

5

10

15

20

25

2014Autumn

2014Winter

2014Spring

2014/15Summer

2015Autumn

2015Winter

2015SpringRe

porte

d dog

attac

ks p

er 10

,000 t

rap/b

ait ni

ght


3.5 Optimising control activities3.5.1 Optimising mix of ground baiting and trappingBaiting and trapping have different attributes that impacts their relative usefulness as a control measure. Overall, the cost per dog killed using baits is almost one-third that of using traps ($1,300 compared to $4,095) – (Table 4). There are two offsetting factors that generate this result. First, the cost per night is lower for baits than traps. Secondly, traps kill more dogs per bait/trap night.

The estimation of these comparative measures is contained in the following sections.

Table 4: Comparative measures modelled to indicate – comparative ground baiting versus trapping costs

Comparative measure Baiting Trapping

Cost per bait/trap night $0.98 $28.46

Wild dog kill rate (per 1,000 bait/trap nights) 0.8 7.0

Cost per dog killed $1,300 $4,095

Source: MJA analysis

Note: This table assumes that the wild dog kill rate is 2% of baits laid and has been estimated based on the average proportion of baits taken over a two-year period (2014 and 2015) multiplied by the estimated number of baits taken by wild dogs (10%). This figure of 2% is consistent with the results of Robley et al. 2009 where cameras were placed at bait stations at sites near Deptford and Merrijig in 2008/09 to gauge which species were taking baits. Interestingly, across the two study areas, 4% of baits laid were taken by foxes.


3.5.2 Comparing the cost of ground baits versus trapsIn this section we consider the relative cost and impact of the two key control measures – ground baiting and trapping. The two measures are compared with reference to the cost per night for one unit of bait or trap in order to ensure comparability between the measures.

We have estimated ground baiting and trapping costs using a bottom up method and then used a top down method to ensure that the bottom up costing is reasonable compared to total wild dog costs.

Using this approach, ground baiting costs per night are estimated to be lower than trapping costs per night (Figure 23). Furthermore, trapping costs are estimated to be almost 30 times higher than baiting costs per night.

Figure 23: Comparative cost per bait/trap night

$0.98

$28.46

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

Total costs per bait per night Total costs per trap per night


The composition of these costs is illustrated in Table 5.

Table 5: Composition of costs

Control type Baiting Trapping

Labour cost per night $0.77 $23.40

Bait/trap purchase cost per night $0.11 $0.31

Travel cost per night $0.09 $4.75

Total cost per night $0.98 $28.46


The cost types are:

labour cost of staff (wild dog controllers) either placing baits in the ground or setting traps;

bait/trap purchase cost, noting that traps are often reused; and

travel cost relating to travelling to different locations to place baits or set traps.


The key assumptions for each of these cost types for baiting and trapping is contained in Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.

Table 6: Baiting cost assumptions

Control type Key assumptions

Labour cost 1 day a week is allocated by wild dog controllers to baiting activities An average of 22 baits are laid each week per wild dog controller. Baits are checked and replaced every 14 days for fresh baits and 30

days for shelf stable baits. 80 per cent of baits laid are manufactured.

Bait purchase cost The average purchase cost per bait (including poison) is $2.50.

Travel cost 3 baiting sites are visited by wild dog controllers on each day allocated to baiting.


One of the key differences between baiting and trapping is that trapping is more labour intensive (Table 7).4 Setting traps involves a larger amount of initial preparatory work in establishing the appropriate place to set the trap relative to baits. Additionally, baits placed in one area (e.g. a ‘bait run’) can range from 8 to 40 baits in one day, whereas trapping activities in one area may only involve a few traps. Baiting does require significant administration to seek approvals and undertake large scale neighbour notification processes; warning signs must also be erected prior to baiting and remain for 28 days post baiting on all access points to the baiting sites.

4 Trapping could become more cost effective in the future with remote monitoring technologies, depending on their relative cost effectiveness and reliability.


Table 7: Trapping cost assumptions

Control type Key assumptions

Labour cost 3 days a week are allocated by wild dog controllers to trapping activities.

A wild dog controller has up to 15 traps in operation on any given work day, with an average of around 10-11 traps in operation at any point in time.

Trap purchase cost The purchase cost per trap is $80 on average.

Travel cost 4 trap sites are visited by wild dog controllers on each day allocated to trapping.


From a top down perspective, the total costs of baiting and trapping that results from this approach is slightly under half of the $5 million total annual cost of the Wild Dog Control Program. This is reasonable taking into consideration a range of other costs related to: coordination; communication; other control measures; and the WDCAC. Additionally, we have not included all of the relevant trapping and baiting costs in our analysis – only those that are significant and expected to be different in terms of cost across the two control measures.

There is very limited data on the costs associated with private control. Given the scope of this review we focus on estimating the costs of baiting control. For simplicity we assume the per unit cost of private baiting is equivalent to the per unit cost of public baiting.

3.5.3 Comparative effectiveness of ground baits versus trapsThe analyses in previous sections of this report illustrated trends in baiting and trapping effectiveness with reference to currently understood measures – baits taken per baits laid and dogs trapped per traps set or checked. However, this does not enable us to appropriately compare the cost effectiveness in destroying dogs across the two measures.

With this in mind, we have created new relative measures of effectiveness of baits and traps in destroying wild dogs. These measures are:

baits taken by wild dog per bait night. This is the number of baits taken for one bait that is in the ground for one night. This measure assumes that around 2 per cent of baits laid are taken by wild dogs; and

Dogs trapped per trap night. This is the number of dogs trapped for one trap that is set for one night.

We estimate that the kill rate per 1000 bait nights is substantially lower than the kill rate per 1000 trap nights. Substantially more baits nights than trap nights are required for a given kill rate (Table 8).


Table 8: Comparative effectiveness – ground baits vs traps

Effectiveness measureAverage value across

2014 and 2015

Wild dog kill rate per 1,000 bait nights 0.8

Wild dogs trapped rate per 1,000 trap nights 7.0


Note: This table assumes that the wild dog take rate is 2 per cent of baits laid. Refer to Table 4 for more details.

3.6 Optimising control activity Based on the current performance outcomes, levels and costs of control of activities, an issue of concern is whether overall performance of the program could be improved by altering current operations and mix of control activities across zones.

The analysis in this section is presented in terms of impact on wild dog take. The reason for not using wild dog attacks or livestock deaths is that, using standard regression analysis, we have been unable to establish robust statistical relationships between alternative control measures and wild dog attacks or livestock deaths.

Moreover, while there is some evidence that higher levels of baiting and trapping will impact livestock deaths (e.g. higher levels of baiting and trapping in Regional Cluster 4 in mid to late 2015 is likely to have resulted in lower livestock deaths - Figure 19), analysis of existing data sets (e.g. Dogbytes) at either an aggregate or regional level does not provide statistically significant relationships between key variables to be able to assess the relative performance of baiting or trapping.

The options presented in this section, while not reflecting all possible options, provide a broad overview of potential changes that could be made. Additionally, the options have been developed assuming that for a Wild dog controller there is:

at least one day per week allocated to setting traps;

at least one day per week allocated to baiting; and

one day per week allocated to ‘other’ activities which are not directly related to trapping or baiting (e.g. community consultation, other types of control measures).

Additionally, we have assumed that 2 per cent of baits laid results in a wild dog being killed.

3.6.1 Options for change under current 72 hour trap inspectionsThere are a range of options that could be undertaken to improve the amount of wild dogs killed. These include increasing the amount of days allocated to baiting and expanding work days to include weekend work, noting that weekend work will increase costs.

With this in mind, we have defined potential future options for wild dog management as:


Base case: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting. This assumes that one day is allocated to non-field related activities and that there is no weekend work. The base case broadly reflects current operations across Victoria.

Option 1A: One day of trapping substituted for baiting. This assumes the same as the base case but with one day of trapping substituted with baiting.

Option 1B: Weekend trapping and allocate freed up day to rostered day off. This assumes that trapping occurs every three days and may occur each week on either a Saturday and/or Sunday. This option assumes a weekend day allocated to trapping incurs an additional cost (assuming a 50% loading to normal staff pay rates for Saturdays and 100% for Sundays).

These options are further illustrated in Table 9.

Table 9: Options for change under 72 hour trap inspectionsScenarios Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Base Case: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting

Each week

Trap set & check

Baiting Trap set & check

Other Trap set & check

No activity

No activity

Option 1A: One day of trapping substituted for baiting

Each week

Trap set & check

Baiting Other Trap check &

deactivate

Baiting No activity

No activity

Week 1 Trap set & check

Baiting No activity

Trap set & check

Other No activity

Trap set & check

Week 2 No activity


Baiting Other Trap set & check

No activity

Week 3 Baiting Trap set & check

Baiting Other Trap set & check

No activity

No activity


Baiting No activity

Trap set & check

Other No activity

Trap set & check

Option 1B: Weekend trapping and allocate freed up day to rostered day off. Assume 15% loading for weekend work.

Week that

applies

The impact of these options compared to the base case is illustrated in Table 10, Figure 24 and Figure 25. These show that there are a range of options to achieve a higher level of dogs killed in order to achieve lower livestock deaths, although some options are costlier than others. Option 1A shows the impact of increasing baiting at the expense of trapping while Option 1B shows the impact of weekend trapping.


Table 10: Summary of impacts for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections

Scenario

Change in dogs

despatched by baits (%)

Change in dogs

trapped (%)

Change in overall level

of dogs despatched

Days a week with trapping

Max traps at point in

time

Impact on costs per annum

relative to base case

Base Case: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting

7 15

Option 1A: One day of trapping substituted for baiting

100% -57% 25% 3 15 $20,363

Option 1B: Weekend trapping and allocate freed up day to rostered day off. Assume 15% loading for weekend work.

50% 0% 26% 7 15 $255,000

Cost impactImpact of trapping and baiting

Source: Marsden Jacob estimates

Note: the cost impact refers to the total annual cost impact across all wild dog controllers.

In comparing the options, both achieve the same overall increase in dogs killed even though Option 1B is three times the cost of Option 1A. However, we note that the difficulty with this result is that it assumes that baits have the same ability as traps to kill a wild dog.

Moreover, it may be the case that some dogs are willing to go past baits to get to sheep which they consider a greater ‘prize’. Moreover, an increase in baits laid may actually kill dogs that are not targeting sheep. Therefore, it is possible that overall livestock deaths may not fall or by as much as expected if a lower number of traps under Option 1A results in the dogs that are attacking sheep not being trapped. The current set of data that are available does not enable us to examine whether this is the case or not.

Figure 24: Impact on dogs killed per annum for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections – relative to the base case

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Base case Option 1A Option 1B

Baits Traps


Note: the cost impact refers to the total annual cost impact across all wild dog controllers.Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

Figure 25: Impact on costs for alternative options under 72 hour trap inspections

$ k

$50 k

$100 k

$150 k

$200 k

$250 k

$300 k

Base case Option 1A Option 1B


Note: the cost impact refers to the total annual cost impact across all wild dog controllers.

3.6.2 Options for change under 48 and 24 hour trap inspectionsThere are a range of options that could be undertaken in response to moving to 48 or 24 hour trap inspections. We have defined potential future options as:

48 hour trap inspections

Base Case assumptions: This option applies the same assumptions as the base case for 72 hour trap inspections – trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting and no weekend work.

Option 2A: Time allocated for trapping is substituted for baiting to achieve the base case level of wild dogs killed. In effect, the number of active traps per day is reduced to accommodate an increase in baiting effort. This applies the same assumptions as the 48 hour base case assumptions scenario except baiting time is increased (at the expense of trapping time) to achieve the same overall level of wild dogs killed.

Option 2B: Weekend trapping and contractor used for one weekend day every two weeks for one day. This allows for the same level of trapping as occurs currently under 72 hour trap inspections. This option assumes that the wild dog controller who sets a trap could be different to the one that checks the trap.

Option 2C: Weekend trapping and contractor used on weekends. Trap setting & checking always occurs on Monday. This allows for the same level of trapping as occurs currently under 72 hours. This option is the same as Option 2B with the exception of always working on Monday. This option assumes that the wild dog controller who sets a trap could be different to the one that checks the trap.

24 hour trap inspectionsDepartment of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

Base Case assumptions: This option applies the same assumptions as the base case for 72 hour trap inspections – trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting and no weekend work.

Option 3A: Time allocated for trapping is substituted for baiting to achieve the base case level of wild dogs killed. This applies the same assumptions as the 24 hour base case assumptions scenario except baiting time is increased (at the expense of trapping time) to achieve the same overall level of wild dogs killed.

Option 3B: Trapping undertaken each day (including weekend). This allows for the same level of trapping as occurs currently under 72 hours. We have assumed cost loadings of 50 per cent for Saturday work and 100 per cent for Sundays with an additional 25 per cent of contractor costs added to allow for extra management time to manage contractors on the weekend and allow for communication of the trapping program from one person to the next. One day each of baiting and other activities undertaken in addition to a seven day week. We have assumed that these tasks are undertaken at normal staff rates. An additional 25 per cent of salary costs is added to these two days to allow for extra management time to manage these additional two days. This option assumes that the wild dog controller who sets a trap could be different to the one that checks the trap.


Table 11: Options for change under 72 hour trap inspections

Scenarios Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

72 hours 72 Hours: Base Case: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting

Each week

Trap set & check



No activity

No activity


Each week

Trap set & check


Other Trap check &

deactivate

No activity

No activity

48 Hours: Option 2A: Time allocated for trapping is substituted for baiting to achieve base case level of wild dog kills

Each week

Trap set & check + some

baiting

Baiting Trap set & check + some

baiting

Other Trap check &

deactivate + some baiting

No activity

No activity




No activity

CONTRACTOR: Trap set &

checkWeek 2 Baiting Trap set &

checkOther Trap set &

checkNo

activityTrap set &

checkNo activity




No activity

CONTRACTOR: Trap set &

checkWeek 4 Baiting Trap set &

checkOther Trap set &

checkNo

activityTrap set &

checkNo activity

Each week

Trap set & check



CONTRACTOR: Trap

set & check

No activity


Each week

Trap set & check

Trap set & check

Trap check &

deactivate

Other Baiting No activity

No activity

24 Hours: Option 3A: Time allocated for trapping is substituted for baiting to achieve base case level of wild dog kills

Each week

Trap set & check

with some baiting

Trap set & check + some

baiting

Trap check &

deactivate + some baiting

Other Baiting No activity

No activity

Each week - 1.4 FTE

Trap set & check

Trap set & check

Trap set & check

Trap set & check

Trap set & check

CONTRACTOR Set &

Check

CONTRACTOR Set & Check

Each week 0.4 FTE

Baiting Other

48 Hours: Option 2C: ` Weekend trapping and contractor used on weekends. Trapping set & checks always occurs on Monday.

24 Hours: Option 3B: Trapping undertaken each day (including weekend). One day each of baiting and other activities undertaken in addition to a seven day week.

48 Hours: Option 2B: Weekend trapping and contractor used for one weekend day every 2 weeks for one day

The impact of these options compared to the base case is illustrated in Table 12, Figure 26 and Figure 27.

Some of the key conclusions from this analysis are that:

if there is no change to current working arrangements (defined as 24 and 48 hour base case assumptions) this leads to no change in costs albeit with a reduction in trapping effort and dogs trapped by traps. Additionally, under these scenarios wild dog controllers are not able to provide the current response timeframe in response to a dog attack.

increased baiting can be used to compensate for lower levels of trapping under 48 and 24 hour trap inspections (Options 2A and 3A) and has a low impact on cost. The potential downside of this option is that baiting may not be as successful in targeting the dogs that are killing livestock and cannot always be applied in a timely manner because of approval processes.


working weekends can enable traps to be in operation 7 days a week (Options 2B, 2C and 3B) under 48 and 24 hour trap inspections. This will achieve the current level of dog kills. The cost is much greater under 24 compared to 48 hour trap inspections. Additionally, the cost under 48 hours depends on whether working arrangements are able to allow for a flow from one week to the next such that the days of trapping rotates from one week to the next (Option 2B compared to Option 2C).

We note that there are a range of animal welfare considerations in the choice of options given that:

some control measures such as baiting and CPEs are considered to be more humane than trapping; and

shorter trapping inspection times are likely to be considered to be more humane.

Table 12: Impact on trapping/baiting levels and costs Scenario

Change in dogs

despatched by baits (%)

Change in dogs

trapped (%)

Change in overall level

of dogs despatched

Days a week with trapping


time



72 hours Base Case: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting

7 15

48 hours Base Case assumptions: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting

0% -43% -20% 4 15 $0

Option 2A: Time allocated for trapping is substituted for baiting to achieve base case level of wild dog kills

47% -52% 0% 4 13 $9,633

Option 2B: Weekend trapping and contractor used for one weekend day every 2 weeks for one day

0% 0% 0% 7 15 $722,222

Option 2C: Weekend trapping and contractor used on weekends. Trapping set & checks always occurs on Monday.

0% 0% 0% 7 15 $935,000


0% -71% -34% 2 15 $0

Option 3A: Time allocated for trapping is substituted for baiting to achieve base case level of wild dog kills

71% -78% 0% 2 11 $14,528

Option 3B: Trapping undertaken each day (including weekend). One day each of baiting and other activities undertaken in addition to a seven day week.

0% 0% 0% 7 15 $3,462,126

Cost impactImpact of trapping and baiting

Note: baiting and trap levels refer to baiting and trap nights.


Figure 26: Impact on dog take per annum for alternative options under 48 and 24 hour trap inspections – relative to the 72 hour base case

-400-300-200-100

0100200300400

Baits Traps

Figure 27: Impact on costs for alternative options under 48 and 24 hour trap inspections

$ k

$500 k

$1,000 k

$1,500 k

$2,000 k

$2,500 k

$3,000 k

$3,500 k

$4,000 k


4. Data — risks, gaps, strengths & opportunitiesKey Task ; Identifies risks, critical gaps, strengths and opportunities to improve the delivery of the program through considering how Victoria records, analyses and value adds to data collected in the program

4.1 StrengthsDog reporting (sightings, dead dogs/kills, livestock attacks/deaths) is voluntarily undertaken in all states. Victoria is the only state that has compulsory reporting requirements. Reporting of methods of control is voluntary in most states with the exception of the delivery of poisons. Pattern of use of baits within regions is usually not recorded although Victoria has the capability (but not routinely used).

The collection, analysis and communication of compulsorily reported data and public Wild Dog Control Program data has substantially improved since 2012. Dedicated reporting apps such as Dogbytes allow real-time point-of-activity reporting. This real time spatial reporting into the central database only exists in Victoria.

These data are supported by novel tools such as genetic sampling of individuals and sophisticated mathematical analysis of fixed camera records which can provide estimates of the underlying dog population size and stability.

The recording of data has enabled the Departments to demonstrate at local and regional levels the scale and scope of wild dog control activities.

This has been beneficial in:

improving transparency of management activities as control data can be generated and explained to landholders;

improving landholder perceptions of the program as improving access to control data has led to improved knowledge of program activities;

improving planning and coordination of control activities as program managers are better able to design and coordinate program activities by gathering, interrogating and sharing data;

improved performance evaluation as data are used to generate quarterly program performance reporting;

improving reporting of incidents as there has been a substantial decline in reported livestock attacks; and

use of camera monitoring to identify problem dogs and observe their behaviour, enables staff to share information with impacted farmers and develop strategies to deal with the dogs involved with individual incidents.

Examples of research activities that have utilised the data include:

DNA surveys for development of Dingo Action Statement and other analyses;

site selection for remote ground baiting and aerial baiting;


monitoring of remote ground baiting to meet Commonwealth requirements for aerial baiting;

wild dog movement research;

comparison of trapping and baiting efficacy;

wild dog diet surveys;

Social Benefit Cost Analysis; and

parasite surveys.

The data have been used to develop evidence-based decision making and help improve operational design including:

creating a containment strategy for the proactive baiting program;

identifying where a strategic, specific and targeted need exists to apply for work outside the 3km buffer zone for the protection of livestock;

supporting applications for emergency control beyond the LPB during the year and not cited in the annual work plan;

determining where baiting or trapping would be most effective;

supporting applications for external funding;

locating wild dog control positions;

identifying where a control measure could be replaced by a contractor;

developing of the service offer described in the Wild Dog Management Zone work plans;

developing of individual WDC control targets and performance management;

continuous improvement where staff undertake tactical planning for challenging areas;

community engagement planning;

evaluating approved traps;

developing of strategic partnership with Southern Ark to identify complimentary baiting runs and reduce duplication; and

supporting policy development with actual field data.

On balance, the majority of benefits appear to have been used as a program extension tool to explain and bring transparency to public control activities and aid the planning and coordination of private baiting initiatives rather than as a tool for program research and development.

The Dogbytes tool has a number of strengths including:

Being a valuable real time operations reporting and design tool where on ground control activities are recorded.

Substantially improving the completeness, accuracy and comparability of data over time.

Real time recording that improves accuracy and usefulness of the data, particularly the number, locations and timing of attacks and subsequent control measures implemented.


Over time the data collection method enables the construction of detailed time-series data.

Increasing the transparency of control activity thereby enables interrogation of controller management and quality of service.

4.2 Gaps There are a number of gaps with quarterly reporting:

Quarterly reporting is generated on a financial year basis but the program is centred on seasonal control activities. Financial quarter reporting dilutes analysis of seasonal program features.

There is limited knowledge of some key performance relationships given:

the length of time the program has operated with collection of comparable data;

gaps in intelligence and surveillance such as: no estimates or understanding of wild dog population; target and non-target take of some control techniques, limited understanding of wild dog behaviours in relation to bait take; and

limited controlled experimentation and piloting of program variables.

There are a number of data gaps associated with Dogbytes:

Data prior to 2012 is not comparable to data post-2012 — prior to 2012 data were manually recorded and are not consistent or easily comparable with data recorded from 2012 using electronic media. Advice received from DEDJTR is that there were substantial differences in the approach to data recording across field service staff under the manual systems operating prior to 2012.

While noting that the North West region has only relatively recently been brought into the program, there is limited in-field recording of program activity in the North West region in the Dogbytes system.

There does not appear to be a robust systematic method to collect information on the impact of baiting on native wildlife and other non-target species.

Aspects of private control are not recorded. As a consequence, data are generally more accurate for public program activity but incomplete for private management activities. This includes gaps in knowledge of the number, location and success of control measures on private land, particularly the timing and location and number of take of private baiting. There are also no data recording of other forms of private management including changes to farm management practices such as private fencing controls, animal husbandry and management practices and use of guard animals.

Definition weaknesses of some performance indicators. Our exposure to the Dogbytes database indicates some trapping measures are not appropriate indicators of trapping effort. For example, the number of traps set bears little resemblance to trapping effort since traps set are only recorded if the location of the trap is changed. A better measure of trapping effort is trap nights.

There are gaps in the way the data are accessed and used:

There is limited centralised and coordinated resources within DELWP and DEDJTR to systematically interrogate the database for the purposes of program research and development.


Data storage and analysis is not fully centralised. A number of aspects of program performance management for externally funded projects are collated external to Dogbytes. Quarterly reporting of performance is generated from a number of recording and evaluation systems.

Dogbytes is largely used as an operational planning and reporting tool. The database has been used in a limited way for strategic assessments. Strategic data assessment has been largely limited to the demands to service quarterly reporting to the WDCAC. For example, there does not appear to have been a systematic, applied and empirical or econometric analysis of the data.

Limited use of the data as an intelligence mechanism. For example, the Dogbytes database does not appear to be interfaced or integrated with other key databases to improve intelligence and to check veracity e.g. Property Identification Codes, National Livestock Identification System. In a number of instances, we understand there are gaps within the database of key data identifiers for some properties.

Management zones while important for coordinating control and managing community engagement in response to local attacks, are too small and too numerous to identify meaningful changes in program performance. In a number of cases the control activities of one zone are closely intertwined with those of others. There is a need to establish appropriate zonal aggregation in order to understand broad trends in program performance.

4.3 RisksThere are a number of risks with the current arrangements for program data including:

Likely inefficiencies and gaps in running multiple data systems and processes to generate reporting, as is currently the case.

The focus of the platform on control activity recording can create a mind-set of reaction and micro planning. There should be a regular cycle of strategic review of seasonal data rather than focusing solely on quarterly performance data.

Financial season analysis dilutes robust interrogation of seasonal performance issues.

Incomplete data on target and non-target take may affect the program’s ability to undertake best practice management.

4.4 OpportunitiesThere are a variety of opportunities to improve the collection and use of program data.

An important first step would be to improve the gathering of data on private and group control activities. The aggregation of individual and community baiting into long time periods and the lack of analysis of control outcomes limits the effectiveness of measuring and analysing private control activities and thereby understand the interaction of public and private control activities and their relative efficacy.

There are opportunities to improve the use of the database as an intelligence tool to improve the efficacy of the program. These could include

Ongoing examination of the relative impact of various control measures on dog attacks and livestock deaths – over time and for different regional zones. This would include developing


new metrics that can be automatically calculated and assessed such as measures of control intensity at management zone level that can be used for planning and consultation purposes.

Assessing alternative resource management strategies — for example, examining the impact of higher levels of baiting and trapping in different regional zones through the use of pilots and careful interrogation of Dogbytes.

Analysing the impact of trapping and baiting on the frequency of dog attacks or livestock deaths as a longer time series of Dogbytes data is accumulated.

Extending these data tools to more comprehensively include or link it to community management data.

Integrating the tool with remote surveillance data to assess wild dog versus non-target take for alternative control measures.

Providing live access to the database for field staff so they can view previous reports and control actions in the vicinity of current attacks.

Providing access for the community to the database to record private control activities.

Note that these opportunities need to be weighed against the costs of making changes to the database and program and how they fit with the objective of the program.


5. Other policies Key Task: Analyses how other government policies e.g. conservation of biodiversity (particularly dingoes), animal welfare, chemical use and work place health and safety pertains to the delivery of the Wild Dog Control Program, in the context of the government’s commitment to reducing the negative impacts of wild dogs on livestock while minimising the impact of wild dog control on Victoria’s biodiversity, including threatened species.

5.1 Conservation of biodiversityThe Victorian government balances its commitment to reduce the impact of wild dogs on livestock with its management and regulatory requirements around the protection of threatened species, and the need to minimise the impact of wild dog control on Victoria’s biodiversity. In particular, dingoes are a threatened species listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and protected under the Wildlife Act 1975. A challenge in balancing wild dog control and dingo conservation is that dingoes are visually indistinguishable from wild dogs thereby making it impossible to ensure that they are not inadvertently destroyed via wild dog control programs. To address this issue, in 2010, an Order in Council was made under the Wildlife Act 1975 (and extended in 2013 for five years) . This Order declared that dingoes are unprotected wildlife in certain areas of the state, in particular on all private land in Victoria and on public land within three kilometres of any private land boundary across two regions of Victoria (livestock protection zones). These two regions relate to the eastern part of the state and a section of the north west of the state.

The livestock protection buffer provides a strong line of defence between public and private land and enables wild dog control to occur where it is needed to best protect livestock.

A benefit of the livestock protection zone is that it allows a targeted and focused approach to wild dog management as government and private landholders are able to cooperate to undertake wild dog management on both private land and public land.

Wild Dog Zone Management Plans allow government and community to work together to identify areas of strategic importance for wild dog control on public land, noting that authorisation requires wild dog control outside of the 3km zone to be targeted, specific and justified for livestock protection.

5.2 Animal welfareOne of the key aims of the Wild Dog Control Program is to minimise attacks on livestock and the consequential animal welfare impacts on the livestock from such attacks. However, the welfare of the wild dogs is also an important consideration when undertaking any control program. Improving animal welfare is a priority of the government and this policy objective must be balanced with the objectives for the Wild Dog Control Program. In 2008, a review was conducted into the welfare outcomes of leg hold traps in Victoria; this review underpinned the regulatory changes made at that time to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 which prescribe the type of traps that can be used and the conditions of use.


The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 also regulates the use of poisons and includes an exemption for use of any poison where done in accordance with specified Acts including the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 . This allows the use of poisons such as 1080 for control of wild dogs.

Animal welfare arrangements in these regulations have influence on the choice and implementation of control measures. Of particular relevance is the length of time allowed between trap inspections to minimise suffering once an animal is caught in a trap.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 provide that a trapped animal must not be left alive in a trap for more than 24 hours or, in the case of a large leghold trap for wild dogs, as otherwise approved by the Minister. A Ministerial approval to allow government agents to leave animals alive in wild dog traps for up to 72 hours in certain approved Victorian parishes has been in place since 2008. This approval process was included in the regulations to allow the Wild Dog Control Program time to move to a 24 hour time limit. We estimate the impacts on the program of specifying a maximum period for which animals may be left alive in a trap (24, 48 or 72 hours) in section 3.6 as the practical implication for the Wild Dog Control Program is that the type, size and design features of traps set must be checked within that period to confirm the absence or presence of an animal (targeted or non-targeted) in the trap.

5.3 Chemical useThere are a variety of restrictions and requirements on the use of chemicals that necessarily influence the program. Some key considerations include:

regulation on the access and use of 1080 poison and manufactured baits for wild dog baiting which given resource constraints could reduce the access to baits and timeliness of baiting and increase the costs of baiting control;

conditions on the location, timing and use of poison without appropriate authorisation;

banning of some poisons on lethal trap devices on animal welfare grounds; and

CPEs are yet to be brought into wide spread use on public land.

5.3.1 Regulation on the access and use of 1080 on public land.As a Schedule 7 poison, a person must have appropriate certification to access and use 1080; wild dog controllers and private landholders must be trained and authorised which involves users undertaking an approved course and being subject to ACUP program auditing. Community baiting is undertaken on a seasonal basis which allows relatively long lead times to undertake appropriate training. The Wild Dog Control Program provides a range of opportunities to improve bait access this includes, supported access to ACUPs training, bait delivery days and the provision of fresh and manufactured baits. As reported in Report 1 a large number of landholders have undertaken ACUP training as part of the program. The costs of this training have been paid for by the Baiting Coordinator Project.

There have also been improvements to the access of 1080 baits through changes to arrangements enabling mobile bait manufacturing and to access to baits from nearby Local Land Councils in NSW.


5.3.2 Conditions on the location, timing and use of poisonBaiting can only occur with appropriate authorisation and in defined areas. For baiting on public land, approval for the laying of baits must be provided by the Land Manager. This approval has a lead time in the order of three months. The pre-approval process is designed to ensure the appropriate alignment of baiting activity with other land management activities and public land uses in the area. Our consultations indicate that pre-approvals and legal requirements regarding neighbour notification of baiting activities take in the order of 3 months. This can have implications for the flexibility to undertake baiting operations on an as needs basis (and could shift effort to less suitable control measures) or respond to changes in program policy and implementation.

There are circumstances under which blanket baiting approvals for some areas are granted that enable immediate baiting in specific locations. One approach could be to define blanket areas and require pre-approvals by exception such as areas of shared public amenity.

Private baiting activity is restricted on public land. The Wild Dog Control Program has introduced the ‘Over the Fence’ program and the broader Baiting Coordinator Project to, in part, help enable collective private control on public land. These programs have contributed to an increase in the level of private control activity on public land, although in comparison to the baiting Coordinator Project only a relatively small number of landholders participated in the Over the Fence program.

5.3.3 Lethal trap devices (LTD)Under the Victorian Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008 (POCTA regulations), a LTD is defined as a device attached to a trap that contains a lethal substance for the purposes of causing the rapid death of trapped target animals through ingestion of the substance.

The provisions of the POCTA regulations are designed to reduce the period of suffering by a trapped animal. Victoria has the Code of Practice for Wild Dog Control and has endorsed, the National Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Wild Dogs, which specifies that where leg-hold traps cannot be checked at least once daily, a lethal toxin must be applied to the jaws of the trap or a lethal trap device must be used (noting there is Ministerial approval to leave an animal alive in a trap up to 72 hours in certain approved parishes).

Strychnine laced traps are allowed in some jurisdictions and are used primarily in more remote applications where it is not feasible to regularly inspect traps. Strychnine, like 1080, is Schedule 7 poison and its use is restricted by licence. Consistent with a number of other jurisdictions, Victoria does not allow the use of Strychnine laced traps. A decision was made in 2013 not to progress the introduction of strychnine LTD’s in Victoria because it is not species specific and its mode of action is not considered humane.

We note there is a national approach to the cessation of strychnine laced traps.

New LTDs that are target specific, humane and effective are under development. One particular LTD for wild dogs and foxes uses PAPP as the toxin, which will bring about the death of the trapped animal in a timely and humane manner. The Proof of Concept phase has been completed but the field studies are ongoing. The registration application to the federal regulator APVMA is being prepared. The APVMA anticipate that a 12 to 18 month period will be required to approve the registration, once it is submitted.


Any subsequent introduction into Victoria, is likely to require amongst other things, amendment of regulatory framework and the development of Codes of Practice to ensure the safe, effective and humane introduction and application of this technique

5.3.4 Canid pest ejectorsCanid pest ejectors (CPEs) have been widely used for many years in some United States jurisdictions and more recently by the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service as part of pilot program. In 2015, APFVMA registered CPE for use on private land and are expected to become widely used in Victoria and other jurisdictions as a wild dog control measure in the near term.

Like all forms of wild dog control, CPEs require skilled use in order to optimise their efficacy. CPEs are likely to improve the overall efficacy of wild dog control as they:

require less inspection than traps;

limit non-target species take, noting that several threatened species in Victoria will be at risk from CPEs, including dingoes;

prevent the opportunity for target and non-target species to cache baits;

have similar variable costs to ground baiting; and

have similar fixed costs to traps and higher fixed costs to buried baits.

We model the application of CPEs to the program in section 7.

5.4 Workplace health and safetyWorkplace health and safety arrangements affect the design and implementation of the Wild Dog Control Program. Aspects of workplace health and safety concerns overlay with restrictions on chemical use and the use of some control technologies.

Control measures involve at times physically and mentally demanding work. Operations in Wild dog Management Zones require significant travel of wild dog controllers to remote areas where they work in isolation from other staff.

As a result, DELWP has developed a custom and practice of wild dog controllers calling supervisors to update their status (safety check) three times a day to discuss field operations. To operate staff in the field on weekends could require the provision of similar supervision services or greater flexibility in the practice and mechanisms for safety checks and field reporting. As such, workplace health and safety arrangements have limited the use of casuals over weekend periods. We examine the impact of using casuals on weekends in section 3.6 when investigating 24 and 48 hour trap inspection times.

Another important consideration is the custom and practice that wild dog controllers can only inspect the traps that they have personally set. Under animal welfare legislation the person setting the trap is liable for any third party management of the trap. For that reason, DELWP has decided it is not appropriate to have someone else check and deal with trap content. This limitation has the practical impact of preventing casual and contract workforce operating traps for short or inter-dispersed periods. As such, these staff only be used for baiting activities or where applied for an extend period of time to trapping activities. The impact of casual and contract workforce flexibility on the program design are modelled in section 3.6.


6. Capitalising on operational efficiencies

Key Task: Analyse current efforts to capitalise on operational efficiencies between private and public sector programs, initiatives and organisations, to assess whether mutually beneficial outcomes are being realised, to inform whether there are opportunities to build on this approach

The Wild Dog Control Program has achieved substantial gains by increasing the level of private baiting control and the coordination and timing of that effort. The program has achieved substantial and sustained improvement in the level of seasonal baiting by private landholders. The timing of the baiting is tightly clustered to align with seasonal wild dog population pressure points and the timing and location of public effort.

The Baiting Coordinator Project has been the central program mechanism along with zone management groups that operate under the project to achieve these outcomes; this program was discussed in detail in Report 1.

Considerations for public trapping arrangements mean that proactive control is secondary to reactive control due to labour costs. Containment is more effective with a greater balance of proactive control. This can only be leveraged by increasing the private control effort on public land.

Based on the known costs, practicality of management, levels of likely take, and alignment with wild dog population pressure points, increasing the level of coordinated and targeted private baiting on private and public land is the most effective approach to improving operational efficiency between private and public sector programs.

Given limited public resources and operating constraints to address wild dog control there are opportunities to enhance wild dog take by increasing the levels of complementary private provision of baiting on public land and potentially increasing other complementary strategies on private land.

Private control efforts that are coordinated are likely to increase the effectiveness of public control. The Baiting Coordinator Project should continue in some form. In the absence of leverage, external funding and/or additional public funding it may be necessary to reduce public control measures in order to provide the resources for the ongoing support of community led seasonal baiting programs.

There are opportunities to extend the reach and capability of the program by continuing to improve access to baits, streamlining and reducing red tape involved with private baiting programs. This could include:

reallocation of some budget from reactive control to support increased capability of private landholders to undertake coordinated baiting – including training, extension and outcome reporting;

continuing to improve provision of data to inform control activities; and

continuing to stream-line and improve access to fresh baits and poisons.



7.Optimal mix of approachesKey Task : Recommends the optimal mix of approaches, tools and technologies, current or otherwise, to be used in Victoria, considering the efficacy, cost effectiveness, return on investment, animal welfare issues and impact on off target species

7.1 BackgroundIn this section we examine the impact on a range of comparative performance indicators of alternative control measures. This analysis is undertaken with reference to the trapping scenarios analysed in Section 3.6. The options are also extended to include operations only involving trapping and operations only involving baiting.

Comparative performance indicators include:

likely dog take;

likely non-target take;

costs of control; and

cost effectiveness of likely dog take.

Key assumptions used to underpin the modelling are summarised in Table 13.


Table 13: Comparison of alternative control measures

Comparative measure

Ground baiting Trapping Aerial baiting Canid pest ejector (CPE)

Cost per bait/trap night

$0.98 $28.46 $3.83 $1.04

Quantity of control measure applied in time period

On average 22 baits laid per day

per worker

Up to 15 traps set and/or checked

per day per worker

Typically, 4,000 baits deployed in a

very short time period

Likely to be similar to ground baiting

Length of time deployed/laid

Baits deployed up to 14 days for

fresh baits and up to 30 days for manufactured

baits

Traps set in one location for

typically around 30 days

Once bait is laid it cannot be checked

Government policy on this has not yet been agreed. Likely to be somewhere

between 30 and 60 days.

Interval between checking on control measure that has been deployed

Baits typically checked at 14 days for fresh baits and

at 30 days for manufactured

baits

Traps checked every 72 hours

Once bait is laid it cannot be checked

Government policy on this has not yet been agreed. Likely to be somewhere

between 30 and 60 days.

Wild dog despatch rate (per 1000 bait/trap nights)

0.8 7.0 Unknown as information on baits taken not

collected.

Likely to be higher than ground

baiting

Cost per dog killed $1,300 $4,095 Unknown as information on baits taken not

collected.

Likely to be slightly higher than ground

baiting

Wild dogs destroyed as a percentage of the total baits laid

Approx. 2% n.a. Unknown as information on baits taken not

collected.

Likely to be close to 100%

Other considerations

More humane compared to

trapping

Longer trap inspection times

more likely to have animal welfare

implications

The 1080 poison is less likely to

deteriorate over time compared to

ground baiting.

Source: MJA analysis and DEWLP

7.2 Comparative performance of control measuresBased on available assumptions it is not possible to estimate the impact of these options on the level of dog attack. There is insufficient data and evidence of cause and effect to conclude a relationship between the level of dog take under current and future control measures and levels of dog attack. Five key variables are unknown:

the current size and growth of the wild dog population in Victoria; Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Review of the Victorian Review of the Victorian Wild Dog Management Program and Recommendations for Future Approaches

bait take by target and non-target species;

the relationship between the intensity of controls within the buffer zone and private land and the incidence of new attacks by wild dogs;

the effectiveness of trapping and baiting to remove existing ‘problem dogs’, i.e. wild dogs known to have been responsible for previous attacks; or dogs that have come through the baiting containment lines and are likely to attack; and

the rate of re-colonization of areas where dogs have been removed.

Likely impact of scenarios

In Table 14 the likely impact of the change in wild dog management arrangements is estimated. These impacts show that:

increased ground baiting will increase dog take, albeit at a higher cost than base case operations under 72, 48 and 24 hour trap inspections (Options A1, B1 and C1);

doubling the current frequency of aerial baiting from once to twice a year will increase dog take but is very expensive compared to alternatives (Options A2, B2 and C2). Aerial baiting is a controlled action under the EPBC Act. Careful site selection is used to address risks associated with potential off target take;

replacing ground baits with CPEs produces similar wild dog take and costs (e.g. base case 72 hours compared to Option A3). However, it does reduce non-target take (e.g. native animals), noting that several key threatened species may be at increased risk;);

replacing trapping with CPEs increases dog take at a higher cost than base case operations under 72, 48 and 24 hour trap inspections. (Options A4, B4 and C5). However, it does reduce the spectrum of non-target species (e.g. native animals) that could be impacted – noting that while dingoes are attracted to the baits several other key threatened species are not and do not have the force to risk setting off the trigger mechanism; and

non-target take is the highest with options in which ground or aerial baiting is increased.

We also note that there are likely to be a range of changes to animal welfare outcomes as a result of any changes to the mix of control measures given that;

some control measures such as baiting and CPEs are considered to be more humane than trapping; and

shorter trapping inspection times are considered to be more humane.


Table 14: Estimate impacts of alternative control scenarios

Ground baits

Traps Aerial baiting

CPEs Total Non target take

Days a week with

trapping


time



Increm-ental cost

per additional wild dog

killNo. %

72 hours Base Case: One FTE undertakes trapping 3 days a week, one day of ground baiting and one day other; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

397 363 91 0 851 4,644 7 15

Option A1: four days of ground baiting and one day other; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

1,590 0 91 0 1,680 830 98% 15,123 0 0 $61,088 $74

Option A2: One FTE undertakes trapping 3 days a week, one day of ground baiting and one day other; two separate drops of aerial baiting (8,000 baits)

397 363 181 0 941 91 11% 5,460 7 15 $460,000 $5,078

Option A3: Same as base case except ground baiting is replaced by CPEs; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

0 363 91 397 851 0 0% 1,067 7 15 $32,378 n.a.

Option A4: Same as base case except trapping is replaced by CPEs; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

397 0 91 1,192 1,680 830 98% 4,392 0 0 $64,917 $78

48 hours Base Case assumptions: trapping 3 days a week and one day of baiting; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

397 207 91 0 695 -155 -18% 4,536 4 15 $0

Option B1: four days of ground baiting and one day other; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

1,590 0 91 0 1,680 830 98% 15,123 0 0 $61,088 $74

Option B2: One FTE undertakes trapping 3 days a week, one day of ground baiting and one day other; two separate drops of aerial baiting (8,000 baits)

397 207 181 0 786 -65 -8% 5,352 4 15 $460,000 -$7,102

Option B3: Same as base case except ground baiting is replaced by CPEs; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

0 207 91 397 695 -155 -18% 959 4 15 $32,378 -$208

Option B4: Same as base case except trapping is replaced by CPEs; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

397 0 91 1,192 1,680 830 98% 4,392 0 0 $64,917 $78


397 104 91 0 501 -350 -41% 4,464 2 15 $0 $0

Option C1: four days of ground baiting and one day other; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

1,590 0 91 0 1,680 830 98% 15,123 0 0 $61,088 $74

Option C2: four days of trapping and one day other; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

0 155 91 0 246 -605 -71% 923 3 15 -$20,363 $34

Option C3: One FTE undertakes trapping 3 days a week, one day of ground baiting and one day other; two separate drops of aerial baiting (8,000 baits)

397 104 181 0 682 -168 -20% 5,280 2 15 $460,000 -$2,732

Option C4: Same as base case except ground baiting is replaced by CPEs; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

0 104 91 397 592 -259 -30% 887 2 15 $32,378 -$125

Option C5: Same as base case except trapping is replaced by CPEs; one drop of aerial baiting (4,000 baits)

397 0 91 1,192 1,680 830 98% 4,392 0 0 $64,917 $78

Change in total wild dogs destroyed

compared to 72 hour base case

Scenario Impact of trapping and baitingWild dogs destroyed per annum Cost impact


7.3 Optimal design mix issuesCaution is required interpreting our analysis in Table 14 to draw conclusion on the most preferred control investment scenario.

Based on available data we are unable to estimate an optimal mix of approaches because:

there are significant uncertainties over the relative efficacy of instruments;

optimisation is dependent on the control strategy to be pursued;

key constraints on the application of control measures; and

some options are simply not practical and would not keep the optimise the deployment of the workforce.


These caveats relate to the public control measures in of themselves. More broadly the extent of private control activities such as fencing and stock management can ultimately influence overall efficacy.

7.3.1 Significant uncertainties over the efficacy of instrumentsA significant limitation to estimating optimal control strategies is the significant uncertainty over the key performance variables that impact on the efficacy of control measures.

This includes uncertainties over the:

level of target and non-target species take by baiting and aerial baiting; and

the relative effectiveness of baiting and trapping to reduce dog attacks as opposed to dog take.

Level of target and non-target species take

Our analyses and conversations indicate that there is a degree of uncertainty over the level of dog take and non-target species take by baiting.

The risk of non-target species take of baits is reduced by the requirements on the program to bury baits and constraining the use of baiting in areas where there is a higher risk of non-target species take, in particular Spot tailed Quoll.

Aerial baiting

Previous research undertaken by the Arthur Rylah Institute (ARI) has found that there is no demonstrated relationship between the level of aerial baiting and the level of dog attack. However, it is noted that community and wild dog controller feedback provides the opposite view.

In our empirical analysis we have made the following assumptions about aerial baiting:

achieves a similar level of bait take per bait laid;

has a similar level non-target species take, noting that in practice, this is highly unlikely given the fact that the bait is not buried and non-target species have a greater risk of taking baits when compared to the use of buried baits; and

has a substantially higher cost per bait laid than ground baiting.

Remote ground baiting is therefore less costly, more target specific than aerial baiting and can achieve an equivalent level of wild dog take.

Relative effectiveness of trapping and baiting to reduce dog attacks

The program has generally assumed that increasing the level of dog take is the mechanism to achieve reductions in dog attacks.

There are two dimensions to reducing the level of dog attacks:

reducing the number of dogs that have attacked; and

reducing the number of dogs that could attack in the future.


Trapping and baiting can conceivably achieve both since both control measures achieve take within close proximity to where attacks have or could occur. However, they have different likelihoods of take for a given level of effort and have different strategic applications since:

some dogs are either less likely to take baits or are less likely to be trapped — there is no single blanket control measure;

trapping is primarily focussed on taking dogs that have attacked in order to stop ongoing attacks as soon as possible or remove dogs in close proximity to livestock that are likely to attack in the short term; and

baiting is primarily focussed on reducing the capacity of populations of dogs to produce new attacks by intercepting dogs before they reach private property.

Given neither control measure can be fully successful in achieving its primary focus, neither can be solely employed.

7.3.2 Control strategy to be pursuedBy definition the control measures are complimentary to one another. The question of issue for this assessment is whether there is an optimal mix of both control measures.

The answer to this, in part, depends on the control strategy to be employed namely either:

containment — undertake control to reduce the number of dogs reaching private property; or

sustained control — undertake control to a new defined acceptable level of attack.

Our conversations with various stakeholders indicate that in the short to medium term (1-3 years) reactive trapping underpins a containment strategy (preventing an increase in the level of dog attack) but in the longer term (beyond 3 years) needs to be supported by baiting in order to address the risk of growth in dog attacks from growth in the wild dog population. In the long run, substantially higher levels of baiting are required to achieve sustained control.

Important questions are whether:

How can sustained control best be achieved?

What does sustained control look like, how is it measured, how do we know we are achieving it, how do we know if we are being successful in protecting livestock?

What is the optimum balance of control on public and private land to achieve sustained dog control at a landscape scale over the longer term?

There is sufficient data to answer any of these questions at this point in time? It is likely that levels of control will vary across Wild Dog Management Zones.

It is not clear to us if this type of intelligence is overlaid within the Dogbytes database, thereby enabling detailed nuanced empirical assessment of control activities and outcomes.

There is some indication that the level of attacks has fallen in some regions with the increases in baiting that have occurred within the 3km buffer since 2013. It is not clear, however, given the short time frame of analysis whether further falls will occur or if the level of attack will stabilise.


It would be valuable to continue current baiting levels for a further 12 months to assess if the emerging trends in some areas can be sustained and to understand if trends emerge in areas where they are presently unclear.

It would also be valuable to estimate and monitor baiting intensities and attack levels and their relationships at localised areas of control.

7.3.3 Factors related to the application of control measuresAs noted in section 1 there are range of factors related to the application of some control measures and this presently influences the flexibility of program managers to alter the mix of control measures.

DELWP has a service delivery commitment. The level of response may range from the provision of advice to trapping i.e. landholders who experience wild dog incidents where stock is maimed, killed or harassed are provided advice on immediate actions to mitigate further losses, and if it is verified that stock losses are due to wild dog attacks an assessment of current controls undertaken in the area may determine whether any modifications are needed. The wild dog controller may implement additional control using reactive tools and techniques such as trapping, opportunistic shooting and baiting.

The most pressing issue is the requirement in the WDMZ workplans to respond individually to each attack incident and continue control activities in the area for extended periods.

These operating arrangements have the practical effect of concentrating most resources into reactive control and, in-turn with trap inspection requirements, results in most of the available labour effort being directed into reactive trapping.


8.Optimal governanceKey Task: Recommends optimal governance arrangements for the wild dog management program in Victoria, including advisory bodies, whole of government arrangements, within department arrangements, and industry and community participation

This Term of Reference is addressed in Report 1.

In Report 1 we concluded there are opportunities to improve the governance arrangements of the Wild Dog Control Program.

We recommended that a new more broadly based advisory body be established. We also recommended that a new Terms of Reference and operating guidelines for the body be established.

In Report 1 we reviewed whole of government arrangements and concluded that on balance the current allocation of program responsibilities across the departments be maintained.

We also found that given current institutional structures, accountabilities and capacities, it would not be appropriate at this point to devolve all operations and governance of the program to regional or local community institutions.


9.Other options for improvement Key Task: Make any other recommendations for the overall improvement of wild dog management in Victoria.

Suggestions for improving the efficacy of the Wild Dog Control Program is constrained because of uncertain relationships between inputs, outputs and outcomes.

In our view there is an urgent need to invest in research and development to inform future program strategy design and operations.

There is an urgent need to undertake comprehensive research on the levels of target and non-target species take by traps, ground (and aerial) baiting and CPEs. We are concerned that there are wide variations in the estimated level of take of baiting in particular.

Another aspect of affecting the assessment of efficacy is the absence of empirical data on the efficacy of targeted trapping. Trapping of wild dogs is primarily undertaken to take problem dogs. Anecdotal evidence is that targeted trapping can be highly effective but the empirical evidence is that trapping is more resource intensive and requires substantial skills. Research should be undertaken to test this evidence.

There is limited understanding of the size of the wild dog population and the empirical relationship between population size, buffer zone size and characteristics, and the level of attack. Improving understanding of these relationships within the Dogbytes database would provide insight into the levels of investment required to reduce dog attacks.

At present there is no systematic method of assessing the incremental contribution of individual controls on the level of attack. In effect, de-facto experimentation is being undertaken on a broad scale without appropriate controlling for other influences. Piloting of alternative mixes and levels of control measures should be considered in targeted locations (to minimise the impact of neighbouring area control influences).

Further consultation with community is required to determine what might be a desirable level of dog take given likely outcomes on attacks, non-target species and program costs.


10.ReferencesFox, C. 2014a, The Status of the Virginia Cooperative Coyote Damage Control Program - Fiscal Year 2013, United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, 105 B Ponderosa Drive, Christiansburg, Virginia.

Fox, C. 2014b, Predators in Peril, The Federal Governments War on Wildlife, Project Coyote. http://www.projectcoyote.org/newsreleases/news_predatorinperil.html

Kowlton, F, Gese, E and Jeager M 1999, ‘Coyote depredation control : an interface between biology and management’, Journal of Range Management, September 52:398-412.

Louney, M., Houben, J., and Eggborn, P 1997, Development of the Virginia Cooperative Coyote Control Program to Protect Livestock, Digital Commons, University of Nebraska.

Robley, A., Woodford, L., Lee, P., Kingston, V., Peters, W., Klippell D., and Gormley, A. 2009, Assessing the effectiveness of ground-based baiting for the control of wild dogs, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 193, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Lightfoot, C 2010, Social benefit cost analysis: wild dog management in Victoria, Tyne Group.


http://www.projectcoyote.org/newsreleases/news_predatorinperil.html

Documents

agriculture.vic.gov.auagriculture.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0008/... · Web viewVictoria has developed a detailed system to ... staff undertake tactical planning for