15/06/2026
This is a super important cause as the dingoes in that area are incredibly rare.
Uneducated people will never understand how genetics work.
All they see is the word ‘dog’ and focus on that and then create policies around that to kill the last remaining distinct population.
Throughout Australia, dingoes share their story of survival through continuous persecution written in their DNA.
Yet those to blame walk away calling dingoes names .. who brought dogs in?
Not the dingoes but man did.
Yet they kill dingoes for an issue created by humans.
Truely flawed.
We hope that the team Working to protect the rare dingoes get their voices heard.
🖤
In response to Alan Bennett’s comments made on ABC Radio’s Victorian Country Hour today, along with the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) media release (June 2), Big Desert Dingo Research (BDDR) wish to clarify several important points about the latest dingo genetic research.
The claim that the Wilkerr/Big Desert dingo population is “30% domestic dog” is not an accurate representation of the research.
The latest genetic research suggests that Wilkerr have an estimated 12% to 17% “dog” ancestry, and that ancestry is not recent. It dates from at least 11 generations ago (at least 33 years).
Historical dog ancestry is not the same as recent hybridisation. It is not evidence of pet dogs roaming around the Big Desert last week. It reflects historic population disruption, land clearing, lethal control and human-modified landscapes.
BDDR also believe that the VFF is drawing a policy conclusion that is not supported by the research it is citing. The new research does not provide a sound basis for removing dingoes from Victoria’s threatened species protections, as the VFF claims. In fact, Ravishankar et al. state that the vast majority of modern dingoes carry only a small fraction of European dog ancestry, and that the term “wild dog” is unlikely to be appropriate for most free-living canine populations in Australia.
That is very different from the argument currently being put forward by the VFF.
A dingo population carrying historic dog ancestry from 10+ generations ago does not cease to be a dingo population. It does not lose its ecological role, cultural significance or conservation value. These animals still function as dingoes in the landscape.
For Wilkerr, the real issue is not whether they carry historic dog ancestry. The real issue is whether this population can survive at all.
Wilkerr are genetically distinct, geographically isolated, severely in**ed and highly vulnerable. Multiple recent studies have identified the Wilkerr population as one of serious conservation concern, with low genetic diversity, isolation and elevated extinction risk.
A recent letter signed by leading dingo geneticists, ecologists, First Nations representatives and conservation scientists also makes this clear. The scientists state that dingoes are genetically distinct from domestic dogs, that first-generation dingo-dog hybrids make up less than 0.5% of the wild canine population, that there are no established free-living feral dog populations in Australia, and that dog ancestry in wild dingo populations is limited and largely historical.
They also state that the term “wild dog” is misleading from a genetics perspective and deeply offensive to many First Nations peoples, because these populations are overwhelmingly composed of dingoes, whether or not they carry historical dog ancestry.
The language being used by the agricultural lobbyists, like the VFF and the National Wild Dog Action Plan Coordinator, is not neutral. “Wild dog” has been used for decades to justify and deliberately hide the destruction of dingoes under a pest management framework. Now, once again, selected genetic figures are being used by lobby groups to try to weaken protections for a threatened native animal.
Ironically, the historic dog ancestry being used to argue against protection may be part of what has helped some south-eastern dingo populations retain enough genetic variation to survive after decades of lethal control, land clearing and fragmentation. Historic dog ancestry does not prove these animals are not worth protecting. It shows how badly human pressure has disrupted them, and why weakening protections now would be so dangerous.
Threatened species protections should be based on extinction risk, population size, isolation, decline, ecological role, cultural significance and ongoing threats. They should not be removed because a lobby group selectively interprets genetic ancestry figures without the broader conservation context.
BDDR recognises that livestock impacts need to be taken seriously. But using historic dog ancestry as a reason to remove threatened species protections is not evidence-based.
The focus should be on accurate monitoring, transparent reporting, greater investment in non-lethal livestock protection, and management that recognises dingoes as culturally significant and ecologically important native wildlife.
We strongly encourage journalists, politicians and members of the public to read the Ravishankar et al. paper in full, and to read the recent scientists’ letter on dingo policy, rather than relying on selected figures from a media release or recycled talking points from lobby groups.
Wilkerr are dingoes. They are native. They are significant. And they need protection, not political spin.
