The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a wild dog found in Australia. Its exact ancestry is debated, but dingoes are generally believed to be descended from semi-domesticated dogs from East or South Asia, which returned to a wild lifestyle when introduced to Australia. Both the dingo and domestic dog are classified as subspecies of Canis lupus in Mammal Species of the World.
The dingo is the largest terrestrial predator in Australia, and plays an important role as an apex predator. Notwithstanding the dingo is seen as a pest by livestock farmers due to attacks on animals. Conversely, their predation on rabbits, kangaroos and rats might be of benefit to grazers.
For a large number of Australians, the dingo is a cultural icon. The dingo is seen by a large number of as being responsible for thylacine extinction on the Australian mainland about two thousand years ago, although a recent study challenges this view. Dingoes have a prominent role in the culture of Aboriginal Australians as a feature of storeys and ceremonies, and they're depicted on rock carvings and cave paintings.
Despite being an efficient hunter, it is listed as vulnerable to extinction. It is proposed that this is due to susceptibility to genetic pollution: a controversial concept according to which interbreeding with domestic dogs might dilute the dingo's unique adaptations to the Australian environment.
The most commonly used name is dingo, which has its origins in the early European colonisation in New South Wales and is most likely derived from the word tingo, used by the Aboriginal people of Port Jackson for their camp dogs. Depending on where they live, local dingoes can be called "alpine dingoes," "desert dingoes," "northern dingoes," "Cape York dingoes," or "tropical dingoes". More recently, people have begun to call dingoes "Australian native dogs" or, by reasoning that they're a subspecies of Canis lupus, "Australian wolves".
The dingo has been given different names in the Indigenous Australian languages, including joogong, mirigung, noggum, boolomo, papa-inura, wantibirri, maliki, kal, dwer-da, kurpany, aringka, palangamwari, repeti and warrigal. Some languages have different names for the dingoes depending on where they live; the Yarralin, for instance, call the dingoes that live with them walaku and those in the wilderness ngurakin.
Since its first official nomenclature in 1792 (Canis antarcticus), the scientific name of the dingo has changed several times.
Current taxonomy classifies the Australian dingo, together with its closest relatives outside of Australia, as a subspecies of Canis lupus as Canis lupus dingo, separate from the dog, Canis lupus familiaris. An older taxonomy, used throughout most of the twentieth century, applied the epithetCanis familiaris dingo. This taxonomy assumed that domestic dogs are a distinct species from Canis lupus, with the dingo classified as a subspecies of domestic dog. Notwithstanding the term Canis dingo, which classifies the dingo as a separate species from both dogs and wolves, has gained support in 2014 in a study that established a reference description of the dingo based on pre-20th century specimens that are unlikely to have been influenced by hybridisation. The dingo differs from the domestic dog by relatively larger palatal width, relatively longer rostrum, relatively shorter skull height and relatively wider top ridge of skull. A sample of nineteenth century dingo skins the study examined suggests that there was considerable variability in the colour of dingoes and included various combinations of yellow, white, ginger and darker variations from tan to black. Although it remained difficult to provide consistent and clear diagnostic features, the study placed morphological limits on what can be considered a dingo.
Domestic and pariah dogs in southern Asia share so a large number of characteristics with Australian dingoes that they're now considered to be members of the same taxon Canis lupus dingo, a particular subspecies of Canis lupus. While the relationship with humans varies widely among these animals, they're all quite similar in terms of physical features.
A dingo has a relatively broad head, a pointed muzzle and erect ears. Eye colour varies from yellow over orange to brown. Compared to additional similarly sized familiaris dogs, dingoes have longer muzzles, larger carnassials (large teeth found in a large number of carnivorous mammals), longer canine teeth, and flatter skulls with larger nuchal lines.
The average Australian dingo is 52 to 60 cm (20 to 24 in) tall at the shoulders and measures 117 to 154 cm (46 to 61 in) from nose to tail tip. The average weight is 13 to 20 kg (29 to 44 lb); however, there are a few records of outsized dingoes weighing up to 27 to 35 kg (60 to 77 lb). Males are typically larger and heavier than females of the same age. Dingoes from northern and northwestern Australia are larger than central and southern populations. Australian dingoes are invariably heavier than Asian ones. The legs are about half the length of the body and the head put together. The hind feet make up a third of the hind legs and have no dewclaws. Dingoes can have sabre-form tails (typically carried erect with a curve towards the back) or tails carried directly on the back.
Fur of an adult dingo is short and soft, bushy on the tail, and varies in thickness and length depending on the climate. The fur colour is mostly sandy to reddish brown, but can include tan patterns and at times be black, light brown, or white. Completely black dingoes might have been more prevalent in Australia in the past, but have only been rarely sighted in recent times. They are now more common in Asia.
Most dingoes are at least bi-coloured, with small, white markings on the chest, muzzle, tag, legs and paws being the most common feature. "Pure" dingoes are additionally found in white or cream (not albinism). They are additionally found in black and tan colourations. In the case of reddish individuals, there can be small, distinctive, dark stripes on the shoulders.
Origin and genetic status
Since dingoes were the largest wild placental mammals in Australia at the time of European colonisation and looked similar to domestic dogs, their origin has always been questioned and much debated. Archaeological and morphological studies indicated a relatively late introduction and a close relationship to additional domestic dogs. Their exact descent, place of origin and date of arrival in Australia weren't identified, nor whether they had once been domesticated or half-domesticated and had gone feral, or whether they had already existed as truly wild animals.
It is widely held that dingoes have evolved or were bred from the Indian wolf or Arabian wolf around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, as was assumed for all domestic dogs. This theory was based on the morphological similarities of dingo skulls and the skulls of these subspecies of wolves. Notwithstanding genetic analyses indicated a much earlier domestication. New studies suggest dingoes might have originated in South China, travelling to Australia anywhere between 4,600 and 18,300 years ago.
Analyses of amino acid sequences of the haemoglobin from a "pure" dingo in the 1970s supported the theory that dingoes are more closely related to domestic dogs than they're to grey wolves or coyotes. As a result, it was assumed that dingoes and additional similar Asian dogs belong to a group of domestic dogs that went feral at a quite early time. DNA studies on Australian dingoes and domestic dogs were additionally undertaken in an effort to reliably differentiate between both populations and to try to determine the extent of interbreeding.
The first two examinations looked firstly at 14 loci (the specific locations of the DNA-sequence of a chromosome), with five of these being more closely examined. No genetic difference can be found. The analyses were then extended to cover 16 loci, comparing dingoes from Central Australia, dingoes from the Eastern Highlands, dingo-hybrids and domestic dogs of additional origin. Again, no differences can be found, regardless of the type of examination used. It was reasoned that dingoes and domestic dogs must have a quite similar gene pool. Notwithstanding after only a few differences in the enzymes of different species of the genus Canis can be found, it was assumed that a lack of differences might not indicate a close taxonomic relationship. It was additionally reasoned that the degree of interbreeding in the wild would be hard to determine.
During further analyses in the late 1990s, researchers examined 14 loci and detected a significantly lower genetic variability among Australian dingoes than among domestic dogs, leading to consideration of the possibility of a small founding population. There was one locus found that might have been suitable for differentiation, but not in the case of interbreeding of a dingo-hybrid with a "pure" dingo. Additionally, it was suspected that findings of additional suitable loci might be used to determine whether there are clearly separate sub-populations of the "pure" dingoes.
More recent studies have concluded that the previous assumptions about the origins of the dingo are incorrect, with the dingo appearing to have no ancestral relationship with the wolf. Dr Mathew Crowther of Sydney University says they based their research using specimens collected in the nineteenth century, and the dingo should be described as Canis dingo rather than Canis lupus dingo. The study by Crowther actually doesn't contain any new DNA analysis but rather depends on visual judgments and measurements of old stuffed nineteenth century dingoes. There is a political dimension to this reclassification of the dingo having to do with protecting it.
Mitochondrial DNA sequences
To determine the origin and time of arrival of Australian dingoes, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences of 211 dingoes and 19 archaeological samples from pre-European Polynesia were compared with mtDNA samples of 676 domestic dogs and 38 grey wolves in 2004. The domestic dog samples came from China, Africa, Southwest Asia, India, Siberia, the arctic America, Europe, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, New Zealand, Hawaii and the highlands of New Guinea. The dingo samples came from zoos, wildlife parks, dingo conservation groups, dingo lovers and 192 wild living specimens from 27 areas in Australia, mainly located in the Pilbara region, New South Wales and northeastern Victoria. The wild specimens had been selected based on similarities of external appearance to exclude the influence of dingo-hybrids and domestic dogs as far as possible.
Compared to wolves and domestic dogs, the variation of mtDNA sequences was quite limited. Among dingoes, only 20 mtDNA sequences differing in two point mutations at most can be found. In comparison, 114 mtDNA-sequences with a maximal difference of 16 point mutations between the DNA-types can be found among domestic dogs. Two of the dingo mtDNA-types were similar to that of domestic dogs (A9, A29), while the additional 18 types were unique to dingoes.
In a phylogenetic tree of wolves and domestic dogs, dingoes were included in the main clade (A), which contained seventy percent of all domestic dog types. Within this clade, the dingo-types formed a group around the type A29, which was surrounded by 12 less frequent dingo-types, as well as a set of additional domestic dog types. This mtDNA-type was found in 53 percent of the dingoes and was additionally found among a few domestic dogs from East Asia, New Guinea and the American Arctic. Based on these findings, it was reasoned that all dingo-mtDNA-types originated in A29. A9 was only found in one individual, and it was regarded as possible that this type is the result of a parallel mutation.
Based on a mutation rate of mtDNA with A29 being the only founder type, it was considered that dingoes probably arrived in Australia between 4,600 and 5,400 years ago, which was consistent with archaeological findings. Notwithstanding it was additionally considered that dingoes might have arrived from an even earlier date of up to 10,800 years ago in the event of the mtDNA-mutation rate being slower than assumed. It was further reasoned that these findings strongly indicate a descent of dingoes from East Asian domestic dogs and not from Indian domestic dogs or from wolves. In addition these findings indicated two possibilities of descent: all Australian dingoes are descended from a few domestic dogs, theoretically one pregnant female; and all Australian dingoes are descended from a group of domestic dogs, who radically lost their genetic diversity through one or several severe genetic bottlenecks on their way from the Asian continent over South East Asia.
Nonetheless, the existence of additional mtDNA-types on the islands surrounding Australia indicate there have been additional types apart from A29 and only one single founding event. These results additionally indicated that there hasn't been any significant introduction of additional domestic dog on the Australian continent prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Also, a shared origin and a few sort of genetic exchange between Australian dingoes and the New Guinea singing dogs was regarded as possible. The current state of the Australian dingoes was ascribed to the long wild existence of these dogs and assumed that they're an isolated example of early domestic dogs.
Despite accordant claims, these findings didn't show that only dingo females mate with non-dingo males and not vice versa. The findings wouldn't allow such a conclusion, after the mating of a dingo female with a non-dingo male couldn't be detected via analyses of mtDNA. Furthermore, the researchers made sure from the start that dingo-hybrids were excluded as far as possible.
Like all domestic dogs, dingoes tend towards phonetic communication. Notwithstanding in contrast to domestic dogs, dingoes howl and whimper more, and bark less. Eight sound classes with 19 sound types have been identified.
Compared to most domestic dogs, the bark of a dingo is short and monosyllabic, and is rarely used. Barking was observed to make up only five percent of vocalisations. Dog barking has always been distinct from wolf barking. Australian dingoes bark mainly in swooshing noises or in a mixture of atonal and tonal sounds. In addition, barking is almost exclusively used for giving warnings. Warn-barking in a homotypical sequence and a kind of "warn-howling" in a heterotypical sequence have additionally been observed. The bark-howling starts with several barks and then fades into a rising and ebbing howl and is probably (similar to coughing) used to warn the puppies and members of the pack. Additionally, dingoes emit a sort of "wailing" sound, which they mostly use when approaching a wateringhole, probably to warn already present dingoes.
According to the present state of knowledge, it isn't possible to get Australian dingoes to bark more frequently by putting them in contact with additional domestic dogs. Notwithstanding German zoologist Alfred Brehm reported a dingo that learned the more "typical" form of barking and how to use it, while its brother did not. Whether dingoes bark or bark-howl less frequently in general isn't certain.
Dingoes have three basic forms of howling (moans, bark-howls and snuffs) with at least 10 variations. Usually, three kinds of howls are distinguished: long and persistent, rising and ebbing, and short and abrupt.
Observations have shown that each kind of howling has several variations, though their purpose is unknown. The frequency of howling varies with the season and time of day, and is additionally influenced by breeding, migration, lactation, social stability and dispersal behaviour. Howling can be more frequent in times of food shortage, because the dogs become more widely distributed within their home range.
Additionally, howling seems to have a group function, and is at times an expression of joy (for example, greeting-howls). Overall howling was observed less frequently in dingoes than among grey wolves. It might happen that one dog will begin to howl, and several or all additional dogs will howl back and bark from time to time. In the wilderness, dingoes howl over long distances to attract additional members of the pack, to find additional dogs, or to keep intruders at bay. Dingoes howl in refrain with significant pitches, and with increasing number of pack-members, the variability of pitches additionally increases. Therefore, it is suspected that dingoes can measure the size of a pack without visual contact. Moreover, it has been proposed that their highly variable refrain howls might generate a confounding effect in the receivers by making pack size appear larger.
Other forms of communication
Growling, making up approximately 65 percent of the vocalisations, is used in an agonistic context for dominance, and as a defensive sound. Similar to a large number of domestic dogs, a reactive usage of defensive growling is only rarely observed. Growling quite often occurs in combination with additional sounds, and has been observed almost exclusively in swooshing noises (similar to barking).
During observations in Germany, dingoes were heard to produce a sound that observers have called Schrappen. It was only observed in an agonistic context, mostly as a defence against obtrusive pups or for defending resources. It was described as a bite intention, throughout which the receiver is never touched or hurt. Only a clashing of the teeth can be heard.
Aside from vocal communication, dingoes communicate, like all domestic dogs, via scent marking specific objects (for example, Spinifex) or places (such as waters, trails and hunting grounds) using chemical signals from their urine, faeces and scent glands. Males scent-mark more frequently than females, especially throughout the mating season. They additionally scent-rub, whereby a dog rolls its neck, shoulders, or back on something that's usually associated with food or the scent markings of additional dogs.
Unlike wolves, dingoes can react to social cues and gestures from humans.
Dingoes tend to be nocturnal in warmer regions, but less so in cooler areas. Their main period of activity is around dusk and dawn. The periods of activity are short (often less than one hour) with short times of resting. Dingoes have two kinds of movement: a searching movement (apparently associated with hunting) and an exploratory movement (probably for contact and communication with additional dogs).
In general, dingoes are shy towards humans. Notwithstanding there are reports of dingoes that were agitated by the presence of humans, such as around camps in national parks, near streets or suburbs. According to studies in Queensland, the wild dogs (dingo hybrids) there, move freely at night through urban areas and cross streets and seem to get along quite well.
About 170 species (from insects to buffalo) have been identified as part of the dingo's diet. In general, livestock seems to make up only a small proportion of their diet. In continent-wide examinations, eighty percent of the diet of wild dogs consisted of 10 species: red kangaroo, swamp wallaby, cattle, dusky rat, magpie goose, common brushtail possum, long-haired rat, agile wallaby, European rabbit and the common wombat. This narrow range of major prey indicates these wild dogs are rather specialised, but in the tropical rainforests of northeastern Australia, dingoes are supposed to be opportunistic hunters of a wide range of mammals. In certain areas, they tend to specialise on the most common prey, with a preference for medium- to large-sized mammals. Their consumption of domestic cats has additionally been proven. Non-mammalian prey is irregularly eaten and makes up only ten percent of the dingo's diet. Big reptiles are only rarely captured, at least in eastern Australia, although they're widespread. It is possible that especially large monitor lizards are too defensive and well-armed, or they're simply able to flee fast enough into dens or climb trees.
Dietary composition varies from region to region. In the gulf region of Queensland, feral pigs and agile wallabies are the dingo's main prey. In the rainforests of the north, the main prey consists of magpie geese, rodents and agile wallabies. In the southern regions of the Northern Territory, the dogs mainly eat European rabbits, rodents, lizards and red kangaroo; in arid Central Australia, rabbits, rodents, lizards, red kangaroo and cattle carcasses; and in the dry northwest, eastern wallaroos and red kangaroo. In the deserts of the southwest, they primarily eat rabbits, and in the eastern and southeastern highlands, they eat wallabies, possums and wombats.
To what extent the availability of rabbits influences the composition of the diet can't be clarified. Notwithstanding because rabbit haemorrhagic disease killed a large part of the Australian rabbit population at the end of the twentieth century, it is suspected that the primary prey of the dogs has changed in the affected areas. Also, on Fraser Island, fish have been proven to be a part of the dingo diet. The main prey species, though, are bandicoots and several rodents. Dingoes additionally eat a lot of echidnas, crabs, small skinks, fruits and additional plants, as well as insects (mostly beetles). During these observations, only ten percent of the examined faeces-samples contained human garbage (in earlier studies fifty percent were reported).
When scavenging for food, wild dogs (presumably, all dogs free to roam, not just dingoes) primarily eat cattle and kangaroo carcasses. Dingoes in coastal regions regularly patrol the coast for dead fish, seals, penguins and additional washed-up birds.
Dingoes in general drink one litre of water a day in the summer and about half a litre a day in winter. During the winter in arid regions, dingoes could potentially live from the liquid in the bodies of their prey, as long as the number of prey is sufficient. Similarly, weaned pups in Central Australia are able to draw their necessary requirements of liquid from their food. There, regurgitation of water by the females for the pups was observed. During lactation, females have no higher need of water than usual, after they consume the urine and faeces of the pups and therefore recycle the water and keep the den clean.
17 tracked dingoes have survived 22 days without water in the winter.
Dingoes often kill by biting the throat, and they adjust their hunting strategies to suit circumstances. For larger prey, due to strength and potential danger, two or more individuals are needed to bring down the prey. Such group formations are unnecessary when hunting rabbits or additional small prey.
Kangaroo hunts are probably more successful in open areas than in places with high densities of vegetation, and juvenile kangaroos are killed more often than adults. Dingoes typically hunt large kangaroos by having lead dingoes chase the quarry toward their waiting packmates, which are skilled at cutting corners in chases. In one area of Central Australia, dingoes hunt kangaroos by chasing them toward a wire fence that hindered their escape.
Birds can be captured when they don't fly or fail to take off fast enough. Dingoes additionally steal the prey of eagles and the coordinated attack of three dingoes for killing a large monitor lizard has been observed.
Reports state that a few dingoes live almost entirely on human food through stealing, scavenging, or begging. In fact, dingoes are well known for such behaviour in a few parts of Australia. It is suspected that this might cause the loss of hunting strategies or a change in the social structures.
During studies at the Fortescue River in the mid-1970s, observation showed that most of the studied dingoes learned to hunt and kill sheep quite quickly, even without prior contact with sheep. Although the dingoes killed a large number of sheep at that time, they still killed and ate kangaroos.
During the early 1990s, wild dogs were observed to have an extraordinarily high success rate when killing sheep, and didn't have to hunt in a coordinated manner to achieve success. Often, a dog might chase and outrun a single sheep, only to turn away suddenly and chase another. Therefore, only a small proportion of the injured or killed sheep and goats are eaten, which seems to be the rule and not the exception. The dog probably falls into a few kind of "killing spree," due to the rather panicked and uncontrolled flight behaviour of the sheep, which run in front of the dingoes time and again and, therefore, cause one attack after another. Dingoes often attack sheep from behind throughout the sheep's flight, which causes injuries to the sheep's hind legs. Rams are normally attacked from the side – probably in order to avoid the horns – or at times on the testicles. Inexperienced dingoes, or those that kill "for fun," at times cause significant damage to the sheep's hind legs, which often causes death.
Nearly all dingo attacks on cattle and water buffalo are directed against calves. Hunting success depends on the health and condition of the adult bovines and on their ability to defend their calves. The defence behaviour of the mother can be sufficient to fend off an attack. Therefore, the basic dingo tactics of attack are distracting the mother, rousing the herd/group and waiting (sometimes for hours), and testing of the herd to find the weakest members.
While locating a cattle herd, dingoes have been observed to make several feint attacks, throughout which they concentrate on the calves at first then, later on, attack the mothers to distract them. Thereupon, the dingoes retreat and wait at a distance from the herd until the rest of the cows have gathered their calves and move on.
During another observed attack, "subgroups" of a dingo pack took turns in attacking and resting, until the mother was too tired to effectively defend her calf. Dingoes have been observed hunting a water buffalo with an estimated weight of 200 kg, and taking turns biting the buffalo's legs throughout the chase.
The dingo's social behaviour is about as flexible as that of a coyote or gray wolf, which is perhaps one of the reasons it was initially believed that the dingo was descended from the Indian wolf. While young males are often solitary and nomadic in nature, breeding adults will often form a settled pack. Notwithstanding in areas of the dingo's habitat with a widely spaced population, breeding pairs remain together, apart from others.
Where conditions are favourable among dingo packs, the pack is stable with a distinct territory and little overlap between neighbors. The size of packs often appears to correspond to the size of prey that appears in the pack's territory. Desert areas have smaller groups of dingoes with a more loose territorial behaviour and sharing of the water sites. It has been noted that the average monthly pack size was between three and twelve members.
Similar to additional canids, a dingo pack largely consists of a mated pair, their current year's offspring, and occasionally a previous year's offspring. There are dominance hierarchies both between and within males and females, with males usually being more dominant than females. Notwithstanding a few exceptions have been noted in captive packs. During travel, while eating prey, or when approaching a water source for the first time, the breeding male will be seen as the leader, or alpha. Subordinate dingoes will approach a more dominant dog in a slightly crouched posture, ears flat and tail down, to ensure peace in the pack. Establishment of artificial packs in captive dingoes have failed.
Dingoes breed once annually, depending on the estrus cycle of the females which, according to most sources, only come in heat once per year. Dingo females can come in heat twice per year, but can only be pregnant once a year, with the second time only seeming to be pregnant.
Males are virile throughout the year in most regions, but have a lower sperm production throughout the summer in most cases. During studies on dingoes from the Eastern Highlands and Central Australia in captivity, no specific breeding cycle can be observed. All were potent throughout the year. The breeding was only regulated by the heat of the females. A rise in testosterone was observed in the males throughout the breeding season, but this was attributed to the heat of the females and copulation. In contrast to the captive dingoes, captured dingo males from Central Australia did show evidence of a male breeding cycle. Those dingoes showed no interest in females in heat (this time additional domestic dogs) outside of the mating season (January to July) and didn't breed with them.
The mating season usually occurs in Australia between March and May (according to additional sources between April and June). In South East Asia, mating occurs between August and September. During this time, dingoes might actively defend their territories using vocalisations, dominance behaviour, growling and barking.
Most females in the wild start breeding at the age of two years. Within packs, the alpha female tends to go into heat before subordinates and actively suppresses mating attempts by additional females. Males become sexually mature between the ages of one and three years. The precise start of breeding varies depending on age, social status, geographic range and seasonal conditions. Among dingoes in captivity, the pre-estrus was observed to last 10–12 days. Notwithstanding it is suspected that the pre-estrus might last as long as 60 days in the wild.
In general, the only dingoes in a pack that successfully breed are the alpha pair, and the additional pack members help with raising the pups. Subordinates are actively prevented from breeding by the alpha pair and a few subordinate females have a false pregnancy. Low-ranking or solitary dingoes can successfully breed if the pack structure breaks up.
The gestation period lasts for 61–69 days and the size of the litter can range from one to 10 (usually five) pups, with the number of males born tending to be higher than that of females. Pups of subordinate females usually get killed by the alpha female, which causes the population increase to be low even in good times. This behaviour possibly developed as an adaptation to the fluctuating environmental conditions in Australia. Pups are usually born between May and August (the winter period), but in tropical regions, breeding can occur at any time of the year.
At the age of three weeks, the pups leave the den for the first time, and leave it completely at eight weeks. In Australia, dens are mostly underground. There are reports of dens in abandoned rabbit burrows, rock formations, under boulders in dry creeks, under large spinifex, in hollow logs, in augmented burrows of monitor lizards and wombat burrows. The pups usually stray around the den within a radius of 3 km, and are accompanied by older dogs throughout longer travels. The transition to consuming solid food is normally accompanied by all members of the pack throughout the age of 9 to 12 weeks. Apart from their own experiences, pups additionally learn through observation. Young dingoes usually become independent at the age of three to six months or they disperse at the age of 10 months when the next mating season starts.
Dingoes usually remain in one area and don't undergo seasonal migrations. Notwithstanding throughout times of famine, even in normally "safe" areas, dingoes travel into pastoral areas, where intensive, human-induced control measures are undertaken. It was noted in Western Australia in the 1970s that young dogs can travel for long distances when necessary. About ten percent of the dogs captured—all younger than 12 months—were later recaptured far away from their first location. Among these, ten percent of the travelled distance for males was 21.7 km and for females 11 km. Therefore, travelling dingoes had lower chances of survival in foreign territories, and it was apparently unlikely that they would survive long migrations through occupied territories. The rarity of long migration routes seemed to confirm this. During investigations in the Nullarbor Plain, even longer migration routes were recorded. The longest recorded migration route of a radio-collared dingo was about 250 km.
Mortality and health
Documented evidence shows that dingoes in captivity have survived for up to 24 years.
The main cause of death for dingoes is being killed by humans, crocodiles and dogs, including additional dingoes. Other causes of death include starvation and dehydration throughout times of drought or after strong bush fires, infanticide, snake bites, killing of pups by wedge-tailed eagles, and injuries caused by cattle and buffalo.
Dingoes are susceptible to the same diseases as domestic dogs. At present, 38 species of parasites and pathogens have been detected in Australian dingoes. The bulk of these diseases have a minimal influence on their survival. The exceptions include canine distemper, hookworms and heart worms in North Australia and southeastern Queensland. Dingo pups can additionally be killed by lungworms, whipworms, hepatitis, coccidiosis, lice and ticks. Sarcoptic mange is a widespread parasitic disease among the dingoes of Australia, but is seldom debilitating. Free-roaming dogs are the primary host of Echinococcosis (tapeworms) and have an infection rate of 70 to 90%.
It is only possible to give a crude description of the dingo's distribution area and the accordant population density. Giving an exact assessment of the distribution of dingoes and additional domestic dogs is difficult after the exact extent of interbreeding between the two isn't known. The following information on the distribution of the dingo applies to dogs classified as dingoes based on fur colour, body form and breeding cycle. Therefore, the maps illustrating their distribution might be conflicting.
Distribution in the past
Based on fossil, molecular and anthropogenic evidence, dingoes might have once had a widespread distribution. These early dingoes would have associated with nomadic hunter-gatherer societies and later with the rising agricultural centres. It is further assumed that they would have been tamed there and then transported to various places in the world. Findings of dingo habitation in Thailand and Vietnam, regarded as the oldest findings, have been estimated at 5,000 to 5,500 years old. The age of similar findings from the highlands of Indonesia vary from 2,500 to 5,000 years.
Originally, the dingo was suspected to have been introduced to Australia in the Pleistocene by Aborigines, which led to confusion concerning the dingo's nomenclature. Today, the most common theory is that the dingo arrived in Australia about 4,000 years ago. In 1979, an eroding dingo skeleton was excavated by Brown and Gollan (ANU) on the mid-coast of southern New South Wales, dated to 6,000 years of age. More recent mitochondrial DNA research estimates the arrival of dingoes to be between 4,600 and 18,300 years. Evidence of dingoes appears to be absent from Tasmania, which was separated from the main Australian landmass around 12,000 years ago due to a rise in sea level, which led to the theory that dingoes haven't been in Australia longer than this time. To reach Australia from Asia, there would have been at least 50 km of open sea to be crossed, even at the lowest sea level. Since there are few, if any, cases of a large land animal making such a journey by itself (the Falkland Islands wolf being a possible exception), the ancestors of modern dingoes most likely were brought to Australia on boats by Asian seafarers. A dance of the Aborigines in the coastal regions of the Kimberley, throughout which they depict dogs running excitedly up and down a boat and finally jumping into the water, is seen as further evidence for the introduction of dingoes by seafarers. These dogs possibly were used as food or eventually guard dogs. Potentially, the dingo came to Australia and the islands of South East Asia and the Pacific throughout the course of expansion of the Austronesian culture.
The two main theories concerning the geographical origin and travel routes of the modern dingo's ancestors and their arrival in Australia are:
- The dingoes originated in East Asia and took a travel route over the South East Asian islands due to their close proximity to Australia, and the relatively easy accessibility over the islands of the South East Asian archipelago. This theory is supported by examination of the mtDNA of Australian dingoes.
- Sheepdogs were introduced from the Indus Valley in Asia, over Timor by Indian seafarers, based on similarities in skeletal anatomy of Indian pariah dogs and Iranian wolves. This theory implies that the oldest-known fossils are 4,000 years old and were found on Timor, where the dogs coexisted for a time with pigs and sheep. This theory would be supported by the assumption that the simultaneous appearance of certain stone tools was caused by Indian influence, but additional authorities dispute this. Recent genetic research on aboriginal DNA seems to support this conclusion, that Indian seafarers brought their dogs and additional tools with them to Australia 4,000 years ago.
Whether there were several introductions of dingoes to Australia or just one isn't yet known.
The first official report of a "wild dog" in Australia comes from Captain William Dampier in 1699. At the time, dingoes were probably widespread over the main part of the continent and lived in the wild, as well as alongside the Aboriginals. They were mostly tolerated by the European settlers and at times kept as pets. The number of dingoes was probably low in those times and increased after then in a few parts of Australia. Their numbers probably increased strongly around the 1880s due to the establishment of the pastoral economy and artesian watering places, and probably peaked in the 1930s and 1950s. Afterwards, the numbers remained high, but the percentage of dingo-hybrids has significantly increased after then.
Today, dingoes live in a large number of diverse habitats, including the snow-covered mountain forests of eastern Australia, the deserts of Central Australia, and Northern Australia's tropical forest wetlands. The absence of dingoes in a large number of parts of the Australian grasslands is probably due to human persecution. Based on skull characteristics, size, fur colour and breeding cycles, distinct regional populations can be seen to exist between Australia and Asia, but not within Australia.
The wild dog population of Australia now includes dingoes and a wide panoply of feral domestic dogs (mostly mixed-breeds and dingo-hybrids) having an enormous variety of colours. Due to the increased availability of water, native and introduced prey, livestock and human-provided food, this population is on the increase. Reports from a few parts of Australia indicate that wild dogs now hunt in packs there, where they had previously been solitary hunters. Dingo densities have been measured at up to 0.3 per square kilometre in both the Guy Fawkes River region of New South Wales and in South Australia at the height of a rabbit plague.
The establishment of agriculture caused a significant decrease in dingo numbers, and dingoes were practically expelled from the territories occupied by the sheep industry, primarily affecting large parts of southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. This situation was maintained by the construction of the Dingo Fence. Although dingoes were eradicated from most areas south of the Dingo Fence, they still exist in an area of about 58,000 km2 in the dry northern areas north of the Dingo Fence and, therefore, on about sixty percent of the entire area.
In Victoria, wild dog populations are currently concentrated on the densely forested areas of the Eastern Highlands, from the border to New South Wales, south to Healesville and Gembrook. They additionally exist in the large desert in the northwest of the state. Wild dog populations in New South Wales primarily exist along the Great Dividing Range and the hinterlands on the coast, as well as in the Sturt National Park in the northwest of the state.
In the rest of the continent, dingoes are regarded as widespread, with the exception of the arid eastern half of Western Australia. In the bordering areas of South Australia and the Northern Territory, they're regarded as naturally scarce. Wild dogs are widespread in the Northern Territory, with the exception of the Tanami and Simpson Deserts, where they're rare due to the lack of watering holes. Notwithstanding local concentrations exist there near artificial water sources. According to DNA examinations from 2004, the dingoes of Fraser Island are "pure". Notwithstanding skull measurements from the mid-1990s had a different result. A 2013 study showed that dingoes living in the Tanami Desert are among the "purest" in Australia.
Outside Australia, dingoes were proven to exist in Thailand, based on comparisons between the skulls of Thai dogs and those of fossil and present-day dingoes. The population there probably has the largest proportion of "pure" dingoes. They are widespread in northern and central Thailand and rare in the southern regions. They might additionally exist in Burma (Myanmar), China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and Vietnam, but if they exist there, their distribution is unknown. Dingoes are regarded as widespread in Sulawesi, but their distribution in the rest of Indonesia is unknown. They are regarded as rare in the Philippines and are probably extinct on a large number of islands. In Korea, Japan and Oceania, a few local dog breeds with dingo-like features exist, but dingoes are considered extinct there.
Ecological impact of the dingo after its arrival in mainland Australia
The dingo is suspected to have caused the extinction of the thylacine, the Tasmanian devil and the Tasmanian nativehen from mainland Australia, after a correlation in space and time is found between the arrival of the dingo and the extinctions of these species. Recent studies have questioned this theory, suggesting that climate change and increasing human populations might have been the cause. Dingoes don't seem to have had the same ecological impact that the red fox had in later times. This might be connected to the dingo's way of hunting and the size of their favoured prey, as well as to the low number of dingoes in the time before European colonisation.
The assumption that dingoes and thylacines were competitors for the same prey stems from their external similarities; the thylacine had a stronger and more efficient bite, but was probably dependent on relatively small prey, while the dingo's stronger skull and neck would have allowed it to bring down bigger prey. The dingo was probably a superior hunter, as it hunted cooperatively in packs and could better defend resources, while the thylacine was probably more solitary. Also, wild dingo populations might have had demographic support from conspecific living with humans and might have introduced new diseases that affected the thylacine more severely.
The extinction of the thylacine on the continent around 2,000 years ago has additionally been linked to changes in climate and land use by the Aborigines. It is plausible to name the dingo as the cause of the extinction, but significant morphological differences between the two suggest that the ecological overlapping of both species might be exaggerated. The dingo has the dentition of a generalist, while the thylacine had the dentition of a specialist carnivore without any signs of consumption of carrion or bones. It is additionally argued that the thylacine was a flexible predator that should have withstood the competition by the dingo, but was instead wiped out due to human persecution.
This theory doesn't explain how the Tasmanian satan and the dingo coexisted on the same continent until about 430 years ago, when the dingo supposedly caused the Tasmanian devil's demise. The group dynamics of dingoes should have successfully kept devils away from carrion, and after dingoes are able to break bones, little would have been left for the devils to scavenge. Additionally, devils are successful hunters of small- to medium-sized prey, so there should have been an overlapping of the species in this area, too. Furthermore, the arguments that the dingo caused the extinction of the thylacine, the satan and the hen are in direct conflict with each other. If the dingo were really so similar to the thylacine and the Tasmanian satan in its ecological role and suppressed both, then coexisting with both for such an extended time is strange. Although this is a possible result of the dingo's introduction, critics regard the evidence for this as insubstantial.
Reliable information about the exact ecological, cultural and economic impact of wild dogs doesn't yet exist. Furthermore, the impact of wild dogs depends on several factors, and a distinction between dingoes and additional domestic dogs isn't necessarily made.
The appearance of a wild dog is at times quite important when it comes to the cultural and economical impact. Here, it is often desired that the wild dog's appearance complies to what's demanded, that it is a "pure" dingo or at least looks like one. In the case of their economic impact, their appearance only seems to be important when "pure" dingoes are used as a tourist attraction. Where wild dogs are regarded as pests, their appearance is only of minor importance, if at all.
The impact wild dogs have in urban areas and whether they're a danger to humans (such as direct attacks or diseases) is currently unknown.
The dingo is regarded as part of the native Australian fauna by a large number of environmentalists and biologists, as these dogs existed on the continent before the arrival of the Europeans and a mutual adaptation of the dingoes and their surrounding ecosystems had occurred. Notwithstanding the contrary view has dingoes as just another introduced predator that are only native to Thailand.
Much of the present place of wild dogs in the Australian ecosystem, especially in the urban areas, remains unknown. Although the ecological role of dingoes in Northern and Central Australia is well understood, the same doesn't apply to the role of wild dogs in the east of the continent. In contrast to a few claims, dingoes are assumed to have a positive impact on biodiversity in areas where feral foxes are present.
Dingoes are regarded as apex predators and possibly perform an ecological key function. It is likely (with increasing evidence from scientific research) that they control the diversity of the ecosystem by limiting the number of prey and keeping the competition in check. Wild dogs hunt feral livestock such as goats and pigs, as well as native prey and introduced animals. The low number of feral goats in Northern Australia is possibly caused by the presence of the dingoes, but whether they control the goats' numbers or not is still disputable. Studies from 1995 in the northern wet forests of Australia found the dingoes there didn't reduce the number of feral pigs, but their predation only affects the pig population together with the presence of water buffaloes (which hinder the pigs' access to food).
Observations concerning the mutual impact of dingoes and red fox and cat populations suggest dingoes limit the access of foxes and cats to certain resources. As a result, it is assumed that a disappearance of the dingoes might cause an increase of red fox and feral cat numbers and, therefore, a higher pressure on native animals. These studies found the presence of dingoes is one of the factors that keep fox numbers in an area low, and therefore reduces pressure on native animals, which then don't disappear from the area. The countrywide numbers of red foxes are especially high where dingo numbers are low, but additional factors might responsible for this, depending on the area. Evidence was found for a competition between wild dogs and red foxes in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales, after there were a large number of overlaps in the spectrum of preferred prey, but there was only evidence for local competition, not on a grand scale.
It is additionally possible that dingoes can live with red foxes and feral cats without reducing their numbers in areas with sufficient food resources (for example, high rabbit numbers) and hiding places. Nearly nothing is known about the relationship of wild dogs and feral cats, except both mostly live in the same areas. Although wild dogs additionally eat cats, it isn't known whether this affects the cat populations. At the moment, the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre is investigating the exact effects of dingoes on the fox and cat populations to determine the benefits of keeping the dog in certain areas of Australia. In a large number of areas, wild dogs live together with the most species of quolls, except for the eastern quoll, which is probably extinct on the mainland, so wild dogs aren't regarded as a threat to them.
Additionally, the disappearance of dingoes might increase the prevalence of kangaroo, rabbit and turkey numbers. In the areas outside the Dingo Fence, the number of dingoes and emus is lower than in the areas inside. Notwithstanding the numbers changed depending on the habitat. Since the environment is the same on both sides of the fence, the dingo was assumed to be a strong factor for the regulation of these species. Therefore, a few people demand that dingo numbers should be allowed to increase or dingoes should be reintroduced in areas with low dingo populations to lower the pressure on endangered populations of native species and to reintroduce them in certain areas. In addition, the presence of the Australian brushturkey in Queensland increased significantly after dingo baiting was conducted.
Cultural opinions about the dingo are often based on its perceived "cunning", and the idea that it is an intermediate between civilisation and wildness.
Some of the early European settlers looked on dingoes as domestic dogs, while others thought they were more like wolves. Over the years, dingoes began to attack sheep, and their relationship to the Europeans changed quite quickly: they were regarded as devious and cowardly, after they didn't fight bravely in the eyes of the Europeans, and vanished into the bush. Dingoes were seen as predators that killed wantonly, rather than out of hunger (similar claims are made today concerning dingo-hybrids). Additionally, they were seen as promiscuous or as devils with a venomous bite or saliva, and so they can be killed unreservedly. Over the years, dingo trappers gained a few prestige for their work, especially when they managed to kill hard to catch dingoes. Dingoes were associated with thieves, vagabonds, bushrangers and parliamentary opponents. From the 1960s, politicians began calling their opponents "dingo," meaning they were cowardly and treacherous, and it has become a popular form of attack after then. Today, the word "dingo" still stands for "coward" and "cheat," with verb and adjective forms used, as well.
The image of the dingo now ranges from the romantic to the demonic. While a few Australians see the dingo as a wild dog, others see them as slightly tame wolves, and cultural biases about each of these animals affect general perceptions about dingoes. Some Australians believe the dingo which should be preserved (at least in its "pure" form), and its possible "extinction" is compared to that of the thylacine.
Traditionally, dogs have a privileged position in the Aboriginal cultures of Australia (which the dingo might have adopted from the thylacine), and the dingo is a well-known part of rock carvings and cave paintings. Ceremonies (like a keen at the Cape York Peninsula in the form of howling) and dreamtime storeys are connected to the dingo, which were passed down through the generations.
Similar to how Europeans acquired dingoes, the Aboriginal people of Australia acquired dogs from the immigrants quite quickly. This process was so fast that Francis Barrallier (the first European to explore the Outback) discovered in 1802 that five dogs of European origin were there before him. One theory holds that additional domestic dogs will adopt the role of the "pure" dingo. In fact, the majority of the myths about dingoes simply call them "dogs" (whether that role was adopted, or whether there was no difference for the storyteller, is unknown), and additional introduced animals, such as the water buffalo and the domestic cat, have been adopted into the indigenous Aboriginal culture in the forms of rituals, traditional paintings and dreamtime stories.
The dingo is connected to holy places, totems, rituals and dreamtime characters. There are storeys that dogs can see the supernatural, serve as guard dogs, and warn against evil powers. There is evidence that dogs have been buried with their owners to protect them against evil even after death. Most of the published myths originate from the Western Desert and show a remarkable complexity. In a few stories, dingoes are the central characters, while in others, they're only minor ones. One time, it is an ancestor from the dreamtime who created humans and dingoes or gave them their current shape. There are storeys about creation, socially acceptable behaviour, and explanations why a few things are the way they are. There are myths about shapeshifters (human to dingo or vice versa), "dingo-people," and the creation of certain landscapes or elements of those landscapes, like waterholes or mountains.
In additional stories, the dingo is responsible for death. In a few myths, advice and warnings are given to those who don't want to follow the social rules. Stories can show the borders of one's territory or the dingo in it might stand for certain members of the community; for example, rebellious dingoes stand for "wild" members of the tribe. The dingo has a wild and uncontrollable face in additional stories, and there are a large number of tales about dingoes that kill and eat humans (for example, the Mamu, which catches and devours the spirit of every child who roams too far from the campfire). Other storeys tell of a giant satan dingo, from which ordinary dingoes originate.
The dog is thereby depicted as a homicidal, malicious creature that—apart from the lack of a subtle mind—is similar to a trickster, after it plays the role of a mischievous adversary for additional mythological beings. Many of them fall victim to blood-thirsty dogs or escape them. Here, individual beings have a significant meaning or at times become part of the landscape. The actions of these dogs result, for instance, in the creation of stones and trees from flying bones and meat or ochre from the spilled blood.
Wild dogs are responsible for a wide range of negative and undesired impacts on the livestock industry of Australia, and they have been regarded as pests after the start of the European livestock industry. Sheep are the most frequent prey, followed by cattle and goats. Research on the real extent of the damage, though, and the reason for this problem, only started recently. Livestock can die from a large number of causes and, when the carcass is found, it is often difficult to determine with certainty the cause of death. Since the outcome of an attack on livestock depends to a high degree on the behaviour and experience of the predator and the prey, only direct observation is certain to determine whether an attack was by dingoes or another domestic dog. Even the existence of remnants of the prey in the scat of wild dogs don't prove they're pests, after wild dogs additionally eat carrion. Exact numbers or reliable estimates of the damage caused by wild dogs are, therefore, hard to obtain and are seldom reliable. Even if livestock isn't a big part of the dingo's diet, the extent of damage dingoes could potentially cause to the livestock industry can be much larger because of wanton killing.
The significance of dingoes as a pest is based primarily on the predation of sheep and, to a lesser extent, on cattle, and isn't connected only to the direct loss of livestock. Harassment of sheep can cause a less optimal use of grassland and miscarriages.
The cattle industry can tolerate low to moderate, and at times high, grades of wild dogs (therefore dingoes aren't so easily regarded as pests in these areas). In the case of sheep and goats, a zero-tolerance attitude is common. The biggest threats are dogs that live inside or near the paddock areas. The extent of sheep loss is hard to determine, due to the wide pasture lands in a few parts of Australia. The numbers of cattle losses is much more variable and less well-documented. Although the loss of cattle can rise up to 30%, the normal loss rate is about 0–10%.
Therefore, factors such as availability of native prey, as well as the defending behaviour and health of the cattle, play an important role in the number of losses. A study in Central Australia in 2003 confirmed that dingoes only have a low impact on cattle numbers when a sufficient supply of additional prey (such as kangaroos and rabbits) is available. In a few parts of Australia, it is assumed that the loss of calves can be minimised if horned cattle are used instead of polled. The precise economic impact isn't known in this case, and it is unlikely that the rescue of a few calves compensates for the necessary costs of control measures. Calves usually suffer less lethal wounds than sheep due to their size and the protection by the adult cattle, and therefore have a higher chance of surviving an attack. As a result, the evidence of a dog attack might only be discovered after the cattle have been herded back into the enclosure, and signs such as bitten ears, tails and additional wounds are discovered.
The opinions of cattle owners regarding dingoes are more variable than the those of sheep owners. Some cattle owners believe that it is better that the weakened mother loses her calf in times of drought so that she doesn't have to care for her calf, too. Therefore, these owners are more hesitant to kill dingoes. The cattle industry might benefit from the predation of dingoes on rabbits, kangaroos and rats. Furthermore, the mortality rate of calves has a large number of possible causes, and it is difficult to discriminate between them. The only reliable method to document the damage would be to document all pregnant cows, then observe their development and that of their calves. The loss of calves in observed areas where dingoes were controlled was higher than in additional areas. Loss of livestock is, therefore, not necessarily caused by the occurrence of dingoes and is independent from wild dogs. One researcher has stated that for cattle stations where dingoes were controlled, kangaroos were abundant, and this affects the availability of grass.
Domestic dogs are the only terrestrial predators in Australia that are big enough to kill fully-grown sheep, and only a few sheep manage to recover from the severe injuries. In the case of lambs, death can have a large number of causes apart from attacks by predators, which are blamed for the deaths because they eat from the carcasses. Although attacks by red foxes are possible, such attacks are more rare than previously thought. The fact that the sheep and goat industry is much more susceptible to damage caused by wild dogs than the cattle industry is mostly due to two factors: the flight behaviour of the sheep and their tendency to flock together in the face of danger, and the hunting methods of wild dogs, along with their efficient way of handling goat and sheep.
Therefore, the damage to the livestock industry doesn't correlate to the numbers of wild dogs in an area (except that there's no damage where no wild dogs occur). Even if there are only a few wild dogs in an area, the damage to the sheep industry can be quite high, after surplus killing can occur. Sometimes, extreme losses of livestock are reported (once reportedly 2,000 sheep in one night) and are supposed to be increasing.
According to a report from the government of Queensland, wild dogs cost the state about $30 million annually due to livestock losses, the spread of diseases and control measures. Losses for the livestock industry alone were estimated to be as high as $18 million. In Barcaldine, Queensland, up to one-fifth of all sheep are killed by dingoes annually, a situation which has been described as an "epidemic". According to a survey among cattle owners in 1995, performed by the Park and Wildlife Service, owners estimated their annual losses due to wild dogs (depending on the district) to be from 1.6% to 7.1%.
Despite the variety of estimates, there's little doubt that predation by dingoes can cause enormous economic damage, especially in times of drought when natural prey is sparse and the number of dingoes is still relatively high. Furthermore, wild dogs are involved in the spread of echinococcosis among cattle and sheep. An infection with echinococcosis can lead to confiscation of ninety percent of the intestines, which further leads to a value decrease of the meat and high economical damage.
Among the indigenous Australians, dingoes were additionally used as hunting aids, living hot water bottles and camp dogs. Their scalps were used as a kind of currency, their teeth were traditionally used for decorative purposes, and their fur for traditional costumes. In a few parts of Australia, premiums are paid for dingo fur and scalps. The fur of dingoes generally has only a low value, and export of this fur is forbidden in states where they're protected. There is no widespread commercial catching and killing of dingoes for the purposes of obtaining their fur.
Sometimes "pure" dingoes are important for tourism, when they're used to attract visitors. Notwithstanding this seems to be common only on Fraser Island, where the dingoes are extensively used as a symbol to enhance the attraction of the island. Tourists are drawn to the experience of personally interacting with dingoes. Pictures of dingoes appear on brochures, a large number of websites and postcards advertising the island. The use of dingo-urine as a repellent against dingoes and wallabies has been considered, but hasn't yet been economically implemented.
Until 2004, the dingo was categorised as of "least concern" on the Red List of Threatened Species. Notwithstanding it has after been recategorised as "vulnerable," following the decline in numbers to around thirty percent of "pure" dingoes, due to crossbreeding with domestic dogs. The dingo is regarded as a regulated, but not threatened, native species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in the Commonwealth of Nations and is, therefore, protected in the national parks of the Commonwealth, as well as in World Heritage Sites and additional conservation areas. Notwithstanding this law additionally allows that dingoes can be controlled in areas where they have a proven impact on the environment. The law forbids the export of dingoes or their body parts from Australia, except for cases where it is regulated by the law. The legal status of the dingo and additional wild dogs varies across the Australian federal states and territories.
- Northern Territory: The dingo is regarded as protected, not threatened, and native (due to its ecological impact) under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (2000). Dingoes in the Northern Territory are regarded as having an important conservational value, after interbreeding of dingoes and additional domestic dogs is low in the area. Notwithstanding dingoes can be legally killed when they're a danger to the livestock industry.
- Western Australia: Dingoes and their hybrids are regarded as declared animals under the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act (1976). Populations must be controlled, and dingoes can be kept as pets under certain conditions. Control measures are strictly confined to livestock areas, and additional domestic dogs are controlled in general. Dingoes are additionally regarded as unprotected native fauna under the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act. Although not protected, dingoes are normally not hunted without permission in conservation areas.
- South Australia: Dingoes and their hybrids are considered pests in the sheep areas inside (south) of the Dingo Fence under the Animal and Plant Control Board (Agricultural Protection and Other Purposes) Act (1986). There, they must be controlled and can only be kept in captivity by authorised zoos and wildlife parks. Outside (north) of the Dingo Fence, dingoes are regarded as legitimate wildlife and, although not protected, control isn't mandatory and certain control methods (such as aerial baiting) aren't permitted. A 35 km wide buffer zone exists immediately outside (north) of the Dingo Fence, where dingo numbers are controlled to quite low levels to reduce incursion through the fence.
- Queensland: Dingoes and their hybrids are regarded as pests under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. All landowners are legally committed to reduce the number of all wild dogs on their lands. The dingo is regarded as wildlife and native wildlife under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and is a natural resource (therefore protected) in conservation areas. Outside of these areas, dingoes aren't regarded as native Australian and aren't protected. Dingoes and their hybrids can only be kept in wildlife parks and zoos with ministerial agreement.
- New South Wales: The Rural Lands Protection Act (1998) allocates wild dogs the status of pests, and demands from landowners that dingoes shall be decimated or eradicated. Although dingoes aren't regarded as protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, they're granted full protection in national parks. The dingo is regarded as a native species under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), after these dogs had established populations before the European colonisation. The Wild Dog Destruction Act (1921) includes dingoes in its definition of "wild dogs". This law only affects the western part of the state, where landowners are committed to control wild dogs. The law forbids the ownership of dingoes in that region, except with legal permission. In additional parts of the federal state, dingoes can be kept as pets under the Companion Animals Act (1998).
- Australian Capital Territory: Dingoes are regarded as protected under the Nature Conservation Act (1980). On private land, the killing of wild dogs is allowed when with permission from the territory.
- Victoria: Wild dogs are regarded as established pests under the Catchment and Land Protection Act (1994), and landowners (except from the Commonwealth) have the legal duty to hinder the spreading of wild dogs on their lands and eradicate them as much as possible. The term "wild dogs" here includes all dingoes, feral domestic dogs, dogs who became wild and crossbreeds (except for recognised breeds such as the Australian Cattle Dog). The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animal Act (1994) requires every dog owner to have their dogs under control at all times. The dingoes are granted a certain protection in areas that are managed by the National Parks Act (1975). Since 1998, it is possible to own dingoes as pets. There is the possibility that "pure" dingoes might become officially classified as a protected species, according to official statements, and wouldn't stand in conflict with control measures against wild dogs. Update: In 2008, dingoes were officially declared a threatened species (in danger of extinction) and are now protected.
- Tasmania: The import of dingoes to Tasmania is forbidden under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1970). The control of dogs that attack livestock is managed under the Dog Control Act (1987).
Dingo attacks on livestock led to widescale efforts to repel them from areas with intensive agricultural usage, and all states and territories have enacted laws for the control of dingoes. In the early twentieth century, fences were erected to keep dingoes away from areas frequented by sheep, and a tendency to routinely eradicate dingoes developed among a few livestock owners. Established methods for the control of dingoes in sheep areas entailed the employment of specific workers on every property. The job of these people (who were nicknamed "doggers") was to reduce the number of dingoes by using steel traps, baits, firearms and additional methods. The responsibility for the control of wild dogs lay solely in the hands of the landowners. At the same time, the government was forced to control the number of dingoes. As a result, a number of measures for the control of dingoes developed over time. It was additionally considered that dingoes travel over long distances to reach areas with richer prey populations, and the control methods were often concentrated along "paths" or "trails" and in areas that were far away from sheep areas. All dingoes were regarded as a potential danger and were hunted.
Apart from the introduction of 1080 (extensively used for 40 years and nicknamed "doggone"), the methods and strategies for controlling wild dogs have changed little over time. Information concerning cultural importance to indigenous people and the importance of dingoes and the impact of control measures on additional species is additionally lacking in a few areas. Historically, the attitudes and needs of indigenous people weren't taken into account when dingoes were controlled. Other factors that might be taken into account are the genetic status (degree of interbreeding) of dingoes in these areas, ownership and land usage, as well as a reduction of killing measures to areas outside of the zones. Notwithstanding most control measures and the appropriate studies are there to minimise the loss of livestock and not to protect dingoes.
Increasing pressure from environmentalists against the random killing of dingoes, as well as the impact on additional animals, demanded that more information needed to be gathered to prove the necessity of control measures and to disprove the claim of unnecessary killings.Today, permanent population control is regarded as necessary to reduce the impact of all wild dogs and to ensure the survival of the "pure" dingo in the wild.
One method that doesn't have any proven effect is to hang dead dogs along the borders of the property in the belief that this would repel wild dogs.
To keep wild dogs away from certain areas, efforts are taken to make these areas unattractive for them (for example, by getting rid of food waste) and therefore forcing them to move elsewhere. Control through deliberately spreading disease is normally not considered. Such attempts probably wouldn't be successful, because typical dog diseases are already present in the population. Additionally, dogs under human care would additionally be susceptible. Other biological control methods aren't regarded as achievable, after there would be a high risk of decimating dogs under human care.
In the 1920s, the Dingo Fence was erected on the basis of the Wild Dog Act (1921) and, until 1931, thousands of miles of Dingo Fences had been erected in several areas of South Australia. In the year 1946, these efforts were directed to a single goal, and the Dingo Fence was finally completed. The fence connected with additional fences in New South Wales and Queensland. The main responsibilities in maintaining the Dingo Fence still lies with the landowners, whose properties border on the fence and receive financial support from the government.
A reward system (local, as well from the government) was active from 1846 to the end of the twentieth century, but there's no evidence that – notwithstanding the billions of dollars spent – it was ever an efficient control method. Therefore, its importance declined over time.
Strychnine is still used in all parts of Australia.
Baits with the poison 1080 are regarded as the fastest and safest method for dog control, after they're extremely susceptible. Even small amounts of poison per dog are sufficient (0.3 mg per kg). The application of aerial baiting is regulated in the Commonwealth by the Civil Aviation Regulations (1988). The assumption that the tiger quoll might be damaged by the poison led to the dwindling of areas where aerial baiting can be performed. In areas where aerial baiting is no longer possible, it is necessary to put down baits.
Over the last years, cyanide-ejectors and protection collars (filled with 1080 on certain spots) have been tested.
The eradication of dingoes due to livestock damage decreased along with the importance of the sheep industry and the usage of strychnine (which beforehand had been used for 100 years) in the 1970s. The number of doggers additionally decreased and the frequency of government-approved aerial baiting increased. During this period, a large number of farmers in Western Australia switched to the cattle industry, and findings in the area of biology led to a significant change in control measures and techniques in association with reduced costs and increased efficiency. At the same time, the importance of 1080 increased.
Owners of dingoes and additional domestic dogs are at times asked to neuter their pets and keep them under observation to reduce the number of stray/feral dogs and prevent interbreeding with dingoes (for instance under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (2000)).
Efficiency of measures
The efficiency of control measures was questioned in the past and is often questioned today, as well as whether they stand in a good cost-benefit ratio. The premium system proved to be susceptible to deception and to be useless on a large scale, and can therefore only be used for getting rid of "problem-dogs". Animal traps are considered inhumane and inefficient on a large scale, due to the limited efficacy of baits. Based on studies, it is assumed that only young dogs that would have died anyway can be captured. Furthermore, wild dogs are capable of learning and at times are able to detect and avoid traps quite efficiently. In one case, a dingo bitch followed a dogger and triggered his traps one after another by carefully pushing her paw through the sand that covered the trap.
Poisonous baits can be quite effective when they're of good meat quality; however, they don't last long and are occasionally taken by red foxes, quolls, ants and birds. Aerial baiting can nearly eliminate whole dingo populations. Livestock guardian dogs can effectively minimise livestock losses, but are less effective on wide open areas with widely distributed livestock. Furthermore, they can be a danger to the livestock or be killed by control measures themselves when they aren't sufficiently supervised by their owners. Fences are reliable in keeping wild dogs from entering certain areas, but they're expensive to build, need permanent maintenance, and only cause the problem to be relocated.
According to studies, control measures can eliminate 66 percent to 84 percent of a wild dog population, but the population can reach its old numbers quite quickly over the course of a year, depending on the season, such as by immigration of young dogs from additional areas. Only a cohesive coordinated control in all areas can be efficient in the long run, if at all. Control measures mostly result in smaller packs and a disruption of pack structure. The measures seem to be rather detrimental to the livestock industry because the empty territories are taken over by young dogs and the predation then increases. Nonetheless, it is regarded as unlikely that the control measures could completely eradicate the dingo in Central Australia, and the elimination of all wild dogs isn't considered a realistic option.
It has been shown that culling a small percentage of immature dingoes on Fraser Island have little significant negative impact on the overall island population, though this is being disputed.
Dingoes are reasonably abundant in large parts of Australia, but there's a few argument that they're endangered due to interbreeding with additional dogs in a large number of parts of their range. Dingoes aren't a protected species, but they're regulated under federal law and, thus, their status varies in different states and territories. Dingoes receive varying levels of protection in conservation areas such as national parks and natural reserves in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Victoria, Arnhem Land and additional Aboriginal lands, UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and the whole of the Australian Capital Territory. In a few states, dingoes are regarded as declared pests and landowners are allowed to control the local populations. Throughout Australia, all additional wild dogs are considered pests.
The dingoes of Fraser Island are considered to be of significant conservational value. Due to their geographic and genetic isolation, they're considered to be the most similar to the original dingoes, and they're seen as the most pure dingo population. The dingoes there aren't "threatened" by interbreeding with additional domestic dogs. Because of their conservational value, outrage was sparked in January 2013 when two six-month-old dingo pups were found dead, believed to have been run over near Lake McKenzie. The couple who found the dingoes were outraged at the reaction of the rangers, and Fraser Coast area manager Ross Belcher said that there will be serious penalties for those who kill or injure Fraser Island dingoes.
In February 2013, a report on Fraser Island dingo management strategies was released, with options including ending the intimidation of dingoes, tagging practise changes and regular veterinary surgeon checkups, as well as a permanent dingo sanctuary on the island.
Groups that have devoted themselves to the conservation of the "pure" dingo by using breeding programmes include the Australian Native Dog Conservation Society and the Australian Dingo Conservation Association. Presently, the efforts of the dingo conservation groups are considered to be ineffective because most of their dogs are untested or are known to be hybrids.
Dingo conservation efforts focus primarily on preventing interbreeding between dingoes and additional domestic dogs in order to conserve the population of pure dingoes. This is extremely difficult and costly. Conservation efforts are hampered by the fact that it isn't known how a large number of pure dingoes still exist in Australia. Steps to conserve the pure dingo can only be effective when the identification of dingoes and additional domestic dogs is absolutely reliable, especially in the case of living specimens. Additionally, conservation efforts are in conflict with control measures.
Conservation of pure and survivable dingo populations is promising in remote areas, where contact with humans and additional domestic dogs is rare. Under New South Wales state policy in parks, reserves and additional areas not used by agriculture, these populations are only to be controlled when they pose a threat to the survival of additional native species. The introduction of "dog-free" buffer zones around areas with pure dingoes is regarded as a realistic method to stop interbreeding. This is enforced in the way that all wild dogs can be killed outside of the conservation areas. Notwithstanding studies from the year 2007 indicate that even an intensive control of core areas is probably not able to stop the process of interbreeding.
There is presently no information regarding what opinions the public has regarding the conservation of dingoes. There is no unity on the definition of "pure" dingoes and to what extent they should be controlled.
As a pet and working dog
Opinion is divided about the keeping of dingoes as pets or as working dogs. Some consider the dingo unsuitable for domestication, while others see a domesticated dingo as no different from any additional domesticated dog. In this vein, dingoes would have the right to be recognised as a dog breed, and domestication would be the only reliable way of ensuring the survival of the "pure" dingo. Some disagree that the dingo should be labelled a dog breed, as they believe "true" dingoes can be tamed but not truly domesticated.
Dingoes can be quite tame when they come in frequent contact with humans. Furthermore, a few dingoes live with humans (due to practical, as well as emotional reasons). Many indigenous Australians and early European settlers lived alongside dingoes. Indigenous Australians would take dingo pups from the den and tame them until sexual maturity and the dogs would leave. Alfred Brehm reported cases where dingoes that were completely tame and, in a few cases, behaved exactly like additional domestic dogs (one was used for shepherding heavy livestock), as well as specimens that remained wild and shy. He additionally reported about dingoes that were aggressive and completely uncontrollable, but he was of the opinion that these reports "should not get more attention than they deserve," after the behaviour depends on how the dingo was raised after early puppyhood. He believed that these dogs could become quite decent pets.
According to Eberhard Trumler, dingoes are quite smart and affectionate. To would-be owners, he recommended the provision of a large escape-proof enclosure and a partner of the opposite sex. During heat, dingoes are harder to manage than additional domestic dogs which, combined with their attachment to their owners, can lead to problems, after they want to follow their owners and never miss the opportunity to feed. Dingoes are supposed to find every weak spot of an enclosure or residence, escape for a while and stray through towns and villages. Their intellectual ability is supposedly connected to an enormous ability to learn and a lightning perception. Dingoes have a reputation for not handling pressure, but this conflicts with their record as working dogs. They are suitable as shepherd dogs, appearing to see a purpose in it (keeping together a familiar group is in their nature) and, even today, a few dingoes are employed as shepherd dogs. In addition, dingoes have strong toileting instincts and can easily be housebroken.
In 1976, the Australian Native Dog Training Society of NSW Ltd. was founded. Until this time, the ownership of dingoes was illegal. In mid-1994, the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC) officially recognised the dingo as Australia's national dog breed, and a breed standard was published a few years later. The dingo is listed in Group 4 (hound) of the ANKC. Notwithstanding it is still illegal in a few states to own, breed or sell dingoes, as it is in a few countries.
In South Australia, dingoes can only be kept in specially licenced zoos, circuses and authorised research institutions. South Australia is a particularly sensitive region, due to extensive sheep farming conflicting with large populations of wild dingoes in the north of the state. Dingoes are bred by certain clubs and private individuals in Australia and the United States. The dingo isn't regarded as a dog breed by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale. Notwithstanding the American Rare Breed Association (ARBA) regards the dingo as a breed belonging to the Spitz and Primitive Group.
In 1998 in New South Wales, the dingo was reclassified as a pet in order to save the species from extinction. Breeding programmes were introduced, which were considered to be the best option available for safeguarding the continuation of the species, with the goal of returning them to the wild at a later date.
Dingoes have additionally been bred for sale or use as working dogs. The use of dingoes at customs was first attempted in 1976 in Victoria. Notwithstanding a few people speculated that these dogs were cross-breeds of dingoes and shepherd dogs.
The ownership of dingoes as pets and their breeding is widely criticised. The main criticism is that the activities and the resulting consequences of the dingo conservation groups, "dingo farms" and legislation for legal ownership of dingoes for people in public, is seen to be an additional threat to the survival of the pure dingoes. This fear exists because the majority of these breeding activities effectively expedite the interbreeding of dingoes and additional domestic dogs, when the identification of a pure dingo isn't absolutely correct respectively when hybrids are sold as "pure" dingoes.
Supporters of breeding programmes are only mildly optimistic about a successful outcome. Success in the form of a population viable for future re-wilding can't be easily accomplished. According to David Jenkins, the breeding and reintroduction of pure dingoes is no easy option and, at the time, there were no studies that seriously dealt with this topic, especially in areas where dingo populations are already present.
An additional threat is that breeders might unconsciously select tamer dingoes by breeding individuals who're easier to manage. Therefore, it might happen that, over the years, the tame populations might become less suitable for living in the wild than their ancestors. In addition, a loss of genetic diversity (thus resulting in a higher susceptibility to diseases) might occur due to a small founding population, and negative changes could occur simply because the dogs were captive-bred. Furthermore, a few features that are necessary for survival in the wild might "fade" under the conditions of domestication (for example, hunting techniques) because they're no longer needed.
Another criticism is that adult dingoes are viewed by a few to be unsuitable as pets in the same ways as additional domestic dogs. Dingoes are regarded as more independent-minded than additional domestic dogs, making domestication reportedly difficult. As dingoes age, they succumb to their natural instincts and become more likely to escape into the wild. Furthermore, most people are unable to provide a dingo with what it needs, and dingoes might not react positively to domestication and training. Supposedly, only few dingoes and dingo-hybrids would reach an old age, after the owners wouldn't know how to handle them. When a dingo isn't socialised, it would be hard to control and develop behavioural problems from aspects of domestic life more easily tolerated by additional dog breeds. To make dingoes more suitable as lapdogs, breeders would need to cross them with additional domestic dogs.
Interbreeding with domestic dogs
European domestic dogs first arrived in Australia throughout the European colonisation. These dogs reverted to the wild (both unintentionally and intentionally), produced feral populations and interbred with the existing dingoes. Hybrids of dingoes and domestic dogs exist today in all wild dog populations of Australia, with their numbers having increased to such a degree that any completely "pure" populations might no longer exist. The degree of interbreeding is locally so high, for instance in urban and rural areas, that there are big populations consisting purely of hybrids. Estimates from the 1990s assumed a proportion of dingo-hybrids of about 78 percent in the wild. It isn't clear how large the current population of hybrids is today.
Dingo-like domestic dogs and dingo-hybrids can be generally distinguished from "pure" dingoes by their fur colour, after there's a wider range of colours and patterns among them than among dingoes. In addition, the more dog-typical kind of barking exists among the hybrids, and differences in the breeding cycle, certain skull characteristics, and genetic analyses can be used for differentiation. Despite all the characteristics that can be used for distinguishing between dingoes and additional domestic dogs, there are two problems that shouldn't be underestimated. First, there's no real clarity regarding at what point a dog is regarded as a "pure" dingo, and, secondly, no distinguishing feature is completely reliable—it isn't known which characteristics permanently remain under the conditions of natural selection.
In science, there are two main opinions regarding this process of interbreeding. The first, and likely most common, position states that the "pure" dingo should be preserved via strong controls of the wild dog populations, and only "pure" or nearly "pure" dingoes should be protected. The second position is relatively new and is of the opinion that people must accept that the dingo has changed and that it is impossible to bring the "pure" dingo back. Conservation of these dogs should therefore be based on where and how they live, as well as their cultural and ecological role, instead of concentrating on precise definitions or concerns about "genetic purity". Both positions are controversially discussed.
There is a wider range of fur colours, skull shapes and body size in the modern-day wild dog population than in the time before the arrival of the Europeans. Over the course of the last 40 years, there has been an increase of about twenty percent in the average wild dog body size. It is currently unknown whether, in the case of the disappearance of "pure" dingoes, remaining hybrids would alter the predation pressure on additional animals. It is additionally unclear what kind of role these hybrids would play in the Australian ecosystems. Notwithstanding it likely that the dynamics of the various ecosystems won't be disturbed by this process.
Attacks on humans
Although dingoes are large enough to be dangerous, they generally avoid conflict with humans. Apart from the well-known case in which an infant was taken from a campsite (see below), there have been numerous confirmed dingo attacks, often involving people feeding wild dingoes, particularly on Fraser Island, a special centre of dingo-related tourism (see main article). Most dingo attacks are minor in nature, but a few can be major, and a few can be fatal. Many Australian national parks have signs advising visitors not to feed wildlife, partly because this practise isn't healthy for the animals, and partly because it might encourage undesirable behaviour, such as snatching or biting by dingoes, kangaroos, goannas and a few birds.
Azaria Chamberlain dingo attack
On 17 August 1980, a nine-week-old girl named Azaria Chamberlain was taken by a dingo near Uluru (then known as Ayers Rock) and killed. Her mother, Lindy Chamberlain, was suspected and wrongly convicted of murder, and her father, Michael Chamberlain, with being an accessory after the fact, as the court didn't believe that an animal generally shy of humans would be capable of such an act. After serving more than three years of her sentence, Lindy was released from prison when the jacket of the baby was found in a dingo den. The parents were thereafter found innocent, but the cause of death wasn't officially listed as a dingo attack until 12 June 2012.
Fraser Island attacks
- In April 1998, a 3-year-old Norwegian girl was bitten and scratched by a dingo.
- On 30 April 2001, nine-year-old Clinton Gage was attacked and killed by two dingoes near Waddy Point on Fraser Island. The incident and the resultant culling of 31 dingoes caused a large outcry among the residents. There were a large number of protests and the suggestion was made to erect fences.
- On 26 April 2011, a three-year-old girl was attacked on Fraser Island by two dingoes. She suffered serious puncture wounds to her leg.
- In November 2012, a six-month-old dingo was killed by rangers on Fraser Island after continued aggressive and dangerous behaviour towards people. The dangerous behaviour included "lunging" at a family, coming out of the bushland at high speed towards volleyball players, and grabbing two tourists on separate occasions with his mouth, not breaking the skin on either occasion. Rangers attempted to trap the dangerous dingo for a month before they were successful. The captured animal was then euthanised. One dingo advocacy group argued that, as a juvenile, the dingo's aggressive behaviours would be considered normal for his young age. Soon after the dingo's brother was killed by rangers, although documented incidents for this dog never reached the serious Code E level his brother's had.
Dingo conservation groups on Fraser Island have become frustrated with the killing of dingoes that attack humans. It has been proposed that problem dingoes be relocated to a wildlife sanctuary. Queensland Environment Minister Andrew Powell said that the Fraser Island government should work to better educate people about dingoes to help stop attacks.
Articles published about dingo attacks blame them on habituation, especially through the intentional and unintentional feeding of dingoes. The more frequently these animals are fed or allowed to scavenge on waste food, the more likely they're to react aggressively towards humans when they no longer receive or find food. It is further thought that dingoes might have started to regard the food sources found (garbage cans, leftovers and handouts) as part of their territory. Attacks then occur with humans seen as competition, and dingoes simply reacting to protect their food supply.
Even when habituation to humans seems to be the general cause for attacks, it isn't absolutely clear, and therefore the overall threat towards people isn't known for sure. Some attacks might result from the "play" of young pups, especially with children. Attacks can additionally be caused by mistaken reactions of humans to aggressive and dominant behaviour of dingoes. That a few dingoes might regard humans as prey is a possibility, as children or incapacitated adults can be theoretically overpowered. Dr. Bradley Smith said that Fraser Island has a problem with humans and not with the dingoes, that dogs who were labelled "aggressive" were simply behaving naturally.
The behaviour of humans might undermine efforts to guard against dingo attacks. Therefore, the change in human behaviour is at the centre of attention. Warning signs like "Beware of Dingoes" seem to have lost their effect on Fraser Island, notwithstanding the high number of such signs. Furthermore, a few humans don't realise how adaptive and quick dingoes are. Therefore, humans don't remain attentive enough. They don't consider, for instance, that dingoes steal food like fruits and vegetables. In addition, a few tourists seemed to be confused by the high number of rules in a few parks, and they have been prompted in a few cases to actively feed the wild animals.
Problems in classification
There is no general agreement (scientific or otherwise) regarding what the dingo is, in a biological sense, after it has been called "wolf," "dingo," "dog," and "wild dog". Even within the scientific community, the dingo is given several names. There is no consensus regarding whether the dingo is a feral or native animal, or what kinds of dogs should be classed as "dingoes". Thus, one writer considered the New Guinea singing dog, the Basenji, the Carolina Dog and certain additional dog populations to be dingoes. Evidence indicates a discord concerning the status of these dogs, as well.
Dingoes have been variously considered to be wild dogs, the progenitor of domestic dogs, the ancestor of modern dog breeds, a separate species, a link between wolf and domestic dog, a primitive canine species or primitive domestic dog, a "dog-like" relative of wolves or a subspecies of the domestic dog. Others consider them to be native dogs of Asia, a relatively unchanged form of early domestic dog, part wolf and part dog, or to have been selectively bred from wolves. Then again, a few don't consider dingoes feral any more but completely wild, after they have been living under natural selection for a quite long time. According to present scientific consensus and knowledge, dingoes are domestic dogs that arrived at their present distribution with humans, adapted to the respective conditions and are no more "primitive" or "primordial" than additional domestic dogs. The Australian dingo has never been subject to the artificial selection that produced modern dog breeds, and it might be an undomesticated descendant of an extinct Asian wolf. Notwithstanding compared to the European grey wolf, dingoes have an approximately thirty percent lower relative brain size, reduced facial expressions, reduced impressive behaviour, curled tails that can be carried over the back, and generally a permanent fertility in males—features that all known domestic dogs share and are considered to be caused by domestication. It might happen that one and the same source names the dingo as a subspecies of the grey wolf, but lists all additional domestic dogs as separate species. Likewise, the scientific name of the dingo might be Canis lupus dingo, but the dingo is regarded as a separate species, nonetheless. Alfred Brehm originally considered the dingo to be a separate species but, after examining several different specimens, he came to the conclusion that they could only be domestic dogs. In contrast, William Jardine considered the dingo to be an entirely separate species, while contemporary French naturalists regarded them as feral dogs. Even among modern-day scientists, dingoes and additional domestic dogs are at times considered two separate species, notwithstanding small genetic, morphological and behavioural differences.
The phenomenon of interbreeding between both is then attributed to the statement that all wolf-like species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Notwithstanding breeding experiments in Germany could only prove an unrestricted fertility in the offspring of domestic dogs and grey wolves. Hybrids between domestic dogs and coyotes, and domestic dogs and golden jackals, had communication problems among each other, as well to the parent species. From the third hybrid generation on, a decrease in fertility and an increase in genetic damage was observed among the coyote-hybrids and jackal-hybrids. Observations of this kind have never been made for hybrids of dingoes and additional domestic dogs, only that dingoes and additional domestic dogs can freely interbreed with each other.
The choice of classification can have a direct impact on the dingo. Dingoes officially cease to exist outside of national parks and become unprotected wild dogs. The term "wild dog," itself, at times only includes dingoes and their hybrids or respectively excludes dingoes. An Additional view is that dingoes are "only" feral outside of national parks, with this term having a more negative meaning than the term "wild".
On the additional hand, dingoes have been "rehabilitated" in a few way, by changing their status from pests to "Australia's native dog" or, more subtly, from a subspecies of the domestic dog to that of the grey wolf. The undertone in the Australian press seemed to be that being a grey wolf or an Asian wolf means that the dingo is more "wild" and, therefore, more desirable than a companion animal (domestic dog). It is possible that the habit of calling the dingo only "dog" (not "wild dog") in colloquial language indicates a form of familiarity or debasing. In the last case, it might be morally easier to kill a dog when it causes problems because it wouldn't have the "high status" of a wolf or dingo. Sometimes, it is considered bad that dingoes are domestic dogs, that they're descended from them and not "directly" from the grey wolf. In short, if the dingo is regarded as native, then it is worthy of protection. But if it is considered to be "just" a variant of the domestic dog, it is regarded as a pest and should be eradicated.