ARCHIVE FILE

This article was published in 1954
See the original document

INSTITUTE OF INSPECTORS OF STOCK OF N.S.W. YEAR BOOK.

Dingo Infestation

THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO THE ARMIDALE PASTURES PROTECTION BOARD DISTRICT.

D. J. WALKER, B.V.Sc., Inspector of Stock, Armidale.

This brief article is to be considered as a supplement or continuation of an article attempting to cover many aspects of the problem in "The Stock Inspector", 1953.

The opportunity is taken also to correct an error, my own, appearing in that article. It was stated that about ten dogs per year were being killed in the Southern Tablelands Board area, at a cost of about £400 per dog. In fact about 100 per year are being killed at a cost of £40 per dog.

Three difficult sources of loss lend themselves to being assessed, namely: 1. Denial of country to more profitable use; 2. Maintenance of dingo-proof fencing; 3. Loss through stock killed.

It is proposed to deal only with the first source of loss, which is obviously the greatest. The dingo fence within this district is so varied in construction, in state of repair and in the type of country through which it runs, that to attempt to assess the annual cost of maintenance through its 370 miles of length would be extremely difficult. The writer has far too little knowledge of the many miles of other dingo-proof fencing in the District even to guess at the mileage involved. The degree of organisation at present existing is inadequate for assessing the actual losses from killings.

The statistical data needed for an appreciation of the position appears to be as follows, Stock population of:

8,414 horses

127,000 cattle

1,898,000 sheep.

Outside the dog-netting fence lie (by map measurements) 1,859,000 acres. Within this area are 198,000 acres of land held by the Forestry Commission, of which 90,750 acres are held under Permissive Occupancy: for rental purposes assessed as having a carrying capacity of 1,170 head of cattle.

After making various "tallies" a discrepancy of about 750,000 acres between map_measurements and stock returns remained. This area has been "written off" for the time being but is to be accounted for in:

(a) abandoned holdings or those which made no stock returns, having been overgrown by scrub;

(b) permissive occupancies and short term leases, being portions of holdings fully outside the dog-proof fence but not included in Returns of Land and Stock, only fully secured lands being "returned";

(d) lease areas held outside the dog-proof fence by owners well within the dog.proof fence.

One can have little knowledge of such leases. (N.B.: Readers may rest assured that this area does exist and that it has not been filched from the District). On the basis of Land and Stock Returns, as at 31st December, 1953, approximately 897,000 acres, situated in the dingo infested area, was carrying 47,200 head of cattle and 36,000 sheep. Three-quarters of these sheep are run on "Giro" and "Glenrock" Stations, within netted "islands" outside the main barrier.

After reducing the sheep figures to cattle figures, using a 6:1 ratio, the overall stocking rate of the Southern area of the District, "D" Division, is found to be a beast to 15.7 acres approx.; and in the North-Eastern, "C" Division, one beast to 28.5 acres.

Loss in value of production is arrived at in this manner:

It was found that 70 holdings of the 210, outside the netting (excluding "Giro" and "Glenrock"), have a stocking capacity better than one beast to 12-13 acres.

It is contended that such land can run sheep successfully. A certain amount of arbitrary judgment was used, together with local knowledge,etc., in including or excluding holdings of higher or lower stocking capacity, as shown by Land and Stock Returns. Nine (9) holdings included in the number are "assessed" on local knowledge (not the writer's) as being capable of running 10,500 sheep: on past records of sheep stocking before dingoes forced conversion to cattle.

For the sake of convenience it is assumed that the cattle on these holdings could be replaced with sheep: giving, at the 6:1 ratio, a sheep capacity of 137,000 head. Using this ratio, cattle could be expected to return in the vicinity of £157,000 and sheep, as an alternative, £628,000, at £6 and £4 per head gross return annually. The actual loss in gross return is £471,000.

The figures of £6 and £4 are arbitrary and selected without a great deal of investigation. One would be perfectly happy for any reader to select his own standards and make appropriate adjustments.

"Gross return" was used in illustration for the reason that nett return or profit to the owner, though important, is but one factor to consider.

It is realised, of course, that ALL the cattle could not be replaced with sheep on these holdings. Many of the other 140-odd holdings listed as being in the dingo infested country are known to have pockets of country within them which are well suited to sheep. These, it is considered, would more than balance any areas unsuited to sheep within the 70 holdings referred to and for such proportion of cattle stocking which, for practical reasons, it would not be desirable to convert to sheep.

It should be emphasised that this is an attempt to examine the position as it is at present. The potential capacity for either sheep or cattle is not considered at all. The loss being sustained is the major factor preventing any substantial move toward the potential. One has only to move about in both sheep and cattle country to appreciate this.

Further matters worthy of note are as follows:

1. Owing to the relative steepness, erosion is not to be disregarded in much of the area. It is realised that sheep are harder on country than cattle, so far as closeness of grazing is concerned. However, sheep are not as heavy and, consequently, do not dislodge soil and stone to the same extent. This also would be offset largely by the fact that sheepmen are less prone to indiscriminate burning.

2. A high proportion of land in the area is held under Crown Lease. Restrictions are in force against indiscriminate timber destruction.

3. The present form of land use within the dingo infested area is not promoting development. As compared with the remainder of the District, development by sub-division, clearing, cultivation, pasture improvement,etc... is at a standstill. It can almost be said the revenue from cattle is insufficient for full maintenance of the land and full improvement on it.

4. More profitable land-use should make rabbit control more satisfactory The stock AND rabbit population carried simultaneously in the past is recommendation beyond words for some holdings in the area.

We must be reconciled to the fact that outside the dog-net is much country which, from a stock-raising point of view, is waste-land and probably always will remain so. On the other hand it is hard to see country being wasted, the dingo the essential cause and, if past history is a reliable guide, the remedy known.

It is of more than passing interest to note that, in the "early days", when the Tablelands areas of this District still were regarded as cattle country, the sheep areas were confined to the coastal belt, now regarded as unsuited to sheep. This was made possible, one has no doubt, only by virtue of rotational grazing: the result of the system of shepherding then in force. One cannot doubt, too, that rotational grazing, in conjunction with cattle, and advances in control of internal parasites again will enable sheep to be run profitably in these areas when there is no longer need to protect them with a fence not less than five feet high.

Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding. it should be made clear that the author has no aversion to beef, either on the plate or the hoof; the sole consideration being the economic.