Charles Pakana (Victorian Aboriginal News):

As we continue on this program to delve into the Victorian government’s recent decision to extend the unprotected order on dingoes across much of Victoria through to 2028, we’re very fortunate today to catch up with the president, only for a couple more months, though I believe of the Victorian Farmers Federation, Emma Germano. Emma, thanks for coming onto the program today.

Emma Germano:

Thanks so much for having me.

Charles:

Emma, we want to get your perspective as well on this. Now, I believe that the farmers have been lobbying the government for this unprotected order for quite a while. Can you just give a bit of perspective and the rationale behind this lobbying of the state government?

Emma:

So it’s kind of been one of those ongoing rolling issues. So this wild dog or dingo issue has been one that’s existed the whole time that I’ve been with the Federation, which is about six years now, first as the vice president, now as the president.

And I guess part of the issue is the notion that these unprotection orders last for a particular period of time and then we go back into having all of the same kind of conversations and never really moving the conversation forward in regards to long-term outcomes I think. So consultation was problematic. We’re trying to get in and have a decent conversation with government and they really left it down to about, I think it was about three weeks before the unprotection order was to be lifted or to be renewed before they went out and did consultation, which at the time I thought that’s going to be sham consultation and they’ve probably already made a decision. But before then, we saw the unprotection order lifted in the northwest of the state. So we’ve been engaging with the landholders there. There’s a number of them, particularly whose stock come under quite a lot of pressure from wild dogs or dingoes and I shouldn’t say wild dogs or dingoes. I think that probably highlights exactly the problem with all of this conversation.

Charles:

Well, one of the problems, yes. Yeah.

Emma:

Yeah. Well, that’s right, one of the problems. And so what we always hate is when there is a decision made instantly where there’s no time to do any preparation for, because obviously it’s led to significant stock losses in the northwest and there are obviously stock losses across the northeast. Concern for us was very much in the northeast that the dog population seems to be far greater. But another issue with consultation and conversations is that we are not all even agreeing upon the science that exists. And it seems to me that we’ve been kind of pitched as if there’s two sides to this story, whereas I think that there’s a greater opportunity if we all get onto the same conversation and sit down together and work through some solutions.

Charles:

This is something you actually alluded to in a media release that came out on the 24th of September, which coincided with the order in council when you actually called on the government to reintroduce the Wild Dogs Advisory Committee, which it had abolished in 2020. So the Wild Dogs Advisory Committee, which featured a number of key people, including someone we’ve interviewed here before, Professor Euan Ritchie on this particular matter. What was the important role that was that committee and why, from your perspective, did the government deem it necessary to abolish it?

Emma:

Well, I guess, and I probably shouldn’t be too critical, but we’ve seen a lot of advisory committees be abolished over the last few years with the government. We think it’s so important that the advisory committee is in place because it brings together all of the interested stakeholders. Instead of always working on the parts where you disagree, why don’t we get parts of agreement where we can actually get some meaningful solutions in place? And then the bits where people disagree become easier to work through when you’ve established that kind of joint purpose and joint understanding. And so that’s why we’re saying they absolutely need to put that advisory committee back in place because otherwise we’re going to get down to the same argument in three years time and nothing will have changed.

So if we are going to remove, ultimately in time, if we’re going to be removing lethal control methods, well, we want to be sure that the non-lethal control methods are actually invested in and put in place now so that we can not see kind of a shock situation happen from the perspective of farmers trying to look after their livestock, but also that disappointment that happens for those that are very passionate about dingo conservation, who feel also let down by the government and by consultation. And we don’t want to see that all happen again in three years. We don’t want to be doing that last minute kind of lobbying approach. It would be really great if we could get some very meaningful practical solutions in place and an understanding as to what numbers exist, what is a sustainable population, what kind of predation happens on farms, and what are those other non-lethal control methods that are effective because we haven’t actually found any yet, and we need the government to be investing in that.

So I think an advisory committee with all of those stakeholders at the same table can only be a great thing because things are worked out through conversations, I think, rather than arguments.

Charles:

While the government certainly seems to have fallen short in appropriate consultation and timely consultation with traditional owners, I’m aware that you’ve actually already met with Barengi Gadjin Land Council is just one of those traditional owner groups in the center of Victoria. That conversation, which related to this particular matter, what were some of the findings there? Because obviously that’s now excluded from the unprotected order, and I believe that the conversations that your organization and Barengi Gadjin Land Council have been having are to explore some of those non-lethal control methods. In particular, what was highlighted there?

Emma:

It’s really interesting that when you actually bring people together who are looking for solutions, that you actually find some joint answers. And we met with the Barengi Gadjin Land Council on the issue of the unprotection order being lifted and then starting to think through, just to have an understanding, firstly the significance and what the land council were, kind of ideas they were comfortable with. So one of the things that, I mean, I thought about pretty much when the unprotection order was lifted, and that one came as a shock, and I think it really came as a shock to the farming community, and it put a lot of fear into the decision in the northeast as well, which when you fill people with fear, then the conversations also change.

We spoke about, I thought, well, why don’t we just put a big fence up around the park? And having met with the traditional owners, they were saying, “Well, we don’t want our park to feel like it’s a jail. We don’t want to jail the animals in here.” And there are some issues with some of the exclusion fencing and that sort of thing. So immediately we went to, well, you know what, if that’s the case, we don’t want to be working against the traditional owners there. And we understood the principles and they took us through a lot of how the [inaudible 00:06:36] is totem animal for them and why it was important and reconnecting with that animal that they thought that it had actually become extinct as well. So finding out that there was still a pure population in that area was very meaningful for them. And they of course want to connect back with that animal.

I don’t think farmers intrinsically have this desire to shoot dogs. Farmers primarily have a desire to protect their livestock, and it kind of doesn’t matter what it is that they’re protecting their livestock from. So that conversation led us to understand as well as a conversation with one of the adjoining landholders there that the dogs come out for water. So one of the things that we’ve realized is if there’s no water in the park, that’s one of the reasons that they’ll come out of the park and often they’ll just chase, maim and kill sheep kind of for fun.

I mean, I was told that that was offensive when I said that, but I was like, they’re dogs like any other dogs. They’re the same species. If they find a hole in the fence and there’s a good time on the other side, you can’t keep your dog in your backyard. And that’s exactly part of the issue. So we were talking about, well, and some of those farmers had said, let’s use our stock and domestic water to pipe water into the parks. Obviously the traditional owners are going to be key in as understanding or the government or Agriculture Victoria understanding where those best watering points are, as well as-

Charles:

Sorry, is there now a relationship that exists between the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Barengi Land Council with specific measures set in place to address this?

Emma:

So we’ve agreed with around some principles. I think by reaching out, I don’t want to sound disingenuous and say, “Oh yes, we’ve started to form a relationship.” There’s a lot more work that needs to go into that. And that’s not just with the Barengi Gadjin, but with traditional owners around the state that the conversation between farmers and traditional owners is not historically known as being a robust conversation. At that kind of official higher level I suppose when we start talking about land councils and farmers federations, I think that there are a lot of meaningful relationships on the ground that don’t necessarily transpire when we start talking about public policy, but it was really important for us to understand. Going to sound a little disingenuous because things had to go wrong before we reached out and said, “Hey, we’d like to have a conversation.”

But we were greeted with open arms and the importance of [inaudible 00:08:52] was explained to us, and that started to lead us to, well, let’s not bang on about this particular solution that we think might be a goer, but let’s join together and advocate to the government that investment into things like cluster fencing is something that both parties end up benefiting from.

And we want to see that investment because just so that people understand, for a farmer to put up a fence that is essentially a complete exclusion fence, and it has to be built robustly because otherwise kangaroos get stuck in them and other wildlife can get stuck in them, we’re talking about probably 10 times the price of an ordinary fence. And now when two neighbors live next door to each other, if they want to put up a fence, they split the cost of that fence 50/50. But when a farmer is adjacent to National Park or State Park, you pay for the fence yourself. So not only are you not getting the benefit of a 50/50, but when it’s talking about really expensive exclusion fences essentially to keep things that should be in the natural park in the natural park or in the National Parks or the state forest, we are paying for those fences by ourselves. So we think that some funding in those areas would be really, really meaningful. And it’s not just also about dingoes. There’s a lot of other species that become pest species and become problematic on farms.

Charles:

Well, let’s just talk about funding for a start because that’s one of the questions that is asked quite often, and that is how much would it really cost to set up some proofs of concept to try out different methods, this more robust fencing, the use of donkeys, the use of dogs as shepherds? What would the Victorian Farmers Federation like to see from the government by way of a financial commitment and indeed better consultation? Because it’s quite a surprise to me, and I think to many of my listeners that the government also didn’t afford appropriate consultation with you as well as traditional owners.

Emma:

Well, I think that surprise goes both ways. And I have to say, I think sometimes traditional owners or the notion, sorry, and I hope I’m sounding respectful because I certainly don’t mean to sound disrespectful in any way. But a lot of times people hide behind the traditional owners and say, “Oh, it’s the traditional owners that want it this way, or, oh, it’s because of the traditional owners.” We actually thought that that was kind of the, you guys were leading the conversation there, and so we were thinking that all the consultation is happening with traditional owners and none is happening with farmers. But of course, when we actually start talking with each other, we realize nobody’s talking to us at all. And that’s why I think it’s really important for us to join together and then go jointly to the government on the things that we agree with.

Non-lethal control measures are expensive, and I think that’s primarily why farmers often will say that it’s not possible to use non-lethal control methods. But if we want to start moving in that direction, well, we need to see the government investing there. It’s probably, I would say it’s going to be tens of millions of dollars. What the government has said is that they’re going to start investing in vertebrate pests, and they don’t want to start singling out species because then I guess the conversation becomes more emotionally charged when we start talking about one animal over another.

Having said that, we at the Farmers Federation always say that there is a chronic lack of funding into public land, and that has so many negative ramifications to landholders and to the economy of the state and to traditional owners and to lots and lots of different stakeholders and different things because, again, we don’t just have a wild dog problem, we’ve got a deer problem, we’ve got a kangaroo problem. And I think it’s easy to feel more emotionally connected with animals that are native animals. For me, it’s probably personally, it’s less important to me whether an animal is a native animal or not a native animal. It’s about whether or not it’s in a play-like proportion or if it becomes a pest or it starts to damage the ecology itself as a species, well then there has to be some kind of management there.

Charles:

Well, what are some of the specific things that you would like to call on the government now to address this particular matter right across the state?

Emma:

Well, we need to certainly reinstate that advisory committee and get the conservationists around the table, the traditional owners around the table, the farmers around the table to say, how are we going to manage this? I think it’s really important to understand that it’s not packs and packs of dogs that will come out onto a farm. It will be one who finds the way who gets there and realizes a good time. And that same one dog will revisit. Again, if we want to see non-lethal controls being used, well then we need to start investing in them and start seeing how they’re going to work over the next three years. So there needs to be more investment up front now so that in three years time we can assess it and say, “Well, where are we at?”

We certainly need more investment into the science around, again, I personally don’t think it’s important whether an animal is 90% pure or 70% pure or 100% pure. We’re going to have that kind of emotive response in any case, but we do need to sit down and at very least agree on what the population size is because as farmers and people who are going into the bush will tell you, oh, there’s that many dogs. We’ve never seen that many dogs. And then you’ve got conservationists say, oh no, they’re on the verge of extinction or they’re threatened. And we need to sort that out.

That should be a fundamental place where we agree so that we can have a meaningful conversation around what strategies that we’re going to use. That kind of wild dog advisory committee, yes, a specific dog advisory committee is important, but the government should be creating a table where conservationists, traditional owners and farmers are all at the table together discussing issues of managing country. I mean, it’s the number one greatest resource to every Victorian. How is it that we take for granted how to manage it? And again, farmers are basically managing about 50% of Victoria’s landmass.

Charles:

All right.

Emma:

When we put that into context, the whole of Victoria is only three percent of Australia’s landmass, so we’ve got to take care of it and we’ve got to do that in a joint fashion.

Charles:

All right, well let me ask you this. What would be required, from your perspective, given that you’ve been involved in the Victorian Farmers Federation for quite a while, you’ve been president for two years during which the Wild Dogs Advisory Committee did exist, what do you believe is required by way of investment from the state government to set up the advisory committee again? Is it a difficult thing? Is it an expensive thing?

Emma:

No. Setting up an advisory committee, my goodness, we’ve got advisory committees left, right, and center. Most of the time organizations are funding their person to be seated at that table, having that conversation. So a spare table in Parliament House is not what’s expensive. It’s actually investing in the measures, but sitting down and agreeing upon what measures should be invested in I think is really, really important. So I don’t want to probably jump in front of what I think an advisory committee could be offering as solutions, but certainly we’ve got to have those conversations. We’ve got to see more public funding and it’s probably should be about $30 or $40 million at least, probably just starting to research some of these non-lethal control methods. There probably does need to be a compensation fund for farmers where the government refuses to do their part and put up that exclusion fencing and that sort of thing.

But we have to have that. For me, it’s about that holistic balance in nature and we’ve got to be thinking not just about wild dogs, but about all of the other species because they all interplay with each other. If you have an overpopulation of dogs, that impacts other species that are out there in the bush as well. And if you have too many deer or whatever food sources for dogs, well then you’re going to see those populations grow as well. We always say we hate it when we pitch environments against farms. Farms are part of the environment, they’re a public good for everybody, but we’ve got to make sure that we’re doing all of those things sustainably as well as managing state parks and making sure that the investment is put into taking care of them properly.

Charles:

All right. Now you’ve mentioned science and research a couple of times during the course of this interview already. There’s quite a bit of conflicting research out there. We’ve got some research out there that’s showing that the loss of we’re talking lambs and goats primarily and kids, that the loss of those two dingoes or wild dogs is significantly less than 10% and there’s other research, or whether it’s supported or not, it’s saying it’s significantly more than that. Research has been done on this time and time again. What’s going to make a difference in getting some form of research that is spot on accurate?

Emma:

I think we have to not just rely, we’ve got to have different data points, I think in different places. So firstly, measuring the dog population, that’s tantamount. One of the issues with stock losses is that farmers will often not report stock losses, and that’s problematic. I think it’s easy to take it for granted when you know that there are lethal methods for those that are happy to use lethal methods that you don’t go and report how many stock losses that you’re having. So we’ve seen a real issue with getting farmers to do that.

Having said that, the difference between 10% of your lambs or not is really significant on farms. We’ve seen in Queensland that kind of their management techniques have basically made it that you don’t have sheep in Queensland because you just lose too many the predators and it becomes unviable. So what we would hate to see the Victorian sheep industry get to a point where it was non-viable, and that’s something that kind of erodes over time. And often it’s when things really have gone significantly wrong that we say, “Oh, maybe we got this management or this balance wrong.” And then sometimes it’s too late because once people get out of the sheep industry and start investing in say, cattle, which suffer less losses, although there are some, you don’t necessarily see industry bounce back again. Having said that, it’s also not helpful for farmers to say, “Oh, it’s millions upon millions upon millions,” and over inflate the number because we know… I shouldn’t say the boy that cried wolf because it’s a part of the pun in this particular conversation.

Charles:

That’s okay. We’ll let that one go through to the keeper.

Emma:

We’ll let that one go through? But what we do need is those accurate numbers and how many sheep is too many sheep? How do you get that balance right? What’s the economic cost? What’s the animal welfare considerations that have to be made as well? A lot of people think it’s just about money. I’ve had farmers, particularly in the Northwest saying, I don’t want compensation from the government. I just don’t want my daughter… One of the farmers that’s been particularly impacted, his daughter has taken over the kind of sheep operations in their farm and she went to him and said, “Dad, I can’t go and check the sheep every morning and rock up to 30 dead animals.” Or worse, you rock up to two dead animals and 10 that you’ve got to shoot yourself. They don’t seem to heal from dog attacks. There’s something in the saliva that seems to get those wounds infected, and they’ll often, if they’re not killed immediately, they’ll die in another week’s time. So there is an animal welfare consideration here as well.

Charles:

The last point that I want to touch on, and just to clarify something that has been mentioned before in other interviews, and we’re talking about the results of research and reporting in from agriculturalist farmers out there, is that there’s also an important point to note that a lot of lamb and kid losses are actually through farming mismanagement. This is the claim that’s been made by a number of people. For example, a lot of farmers are seeking to increase the fertility of animals, going for twins and triplets. There are losses there. Are also losses due to result of cold weather, and these don’t seem to have been given the importance in this particular matter as the dingo matter. So what’s your comment on that one and what is being done to address those particular issues in tandem with this dingo matter?

Emma:

My first response is obviously a defensive one, and I’m sorry to respond like that.

Charles:

That’s fine.

Emma:

But I think that it’s interesting because, to me, a farmer will try and do anything they can to get… I mean, even if they don’t, and this is not the case with majority of farmers, but even if they weren’t concerned about the animal welfare, it costs them money to lose lambs. Every issue gets taken up as its own individual issue. So I guess farmers don’t say, “Oh, well, I guess given that a frost might happen and I might lose one percent of my lambs just due to frost, well, I won’t care about the wild dogs.” I think there is something particularly traumatic about when animals are maimed by or when sheep are maimed by the dingoes, it’s pretty horrific. So that’s another kind of consideration I suppose. I guess farmers are thinking about all sorts of husbandry techniques to have their animals thriving because it’s your thriving animals that ultimately make you the most money.

I think part of the fear is if we don’t make sure that these control methods are in place, and I don’t just mean lethal controls, I mean that the issue is not one where we’re seeing huge losses to dingoes. If we don’t get that under control or have a meaningful pathway around what that looks like over the next decade and beyond, then the worry is that if there’s small areas of predation in some particular places, that the dogs will then continue to move through those places, and then we might end up having a far greater issue across the state. So whilst in the northwest and the northeast there are particular hotspots, the concern is if we’re not managing those populations, that potentially this problem could get bigger.

And again, we’re arguing about how many dogs there are. Science should be science should be science, and it should be invested in by the government so that we don’t have differing parties with differing opinions producing science that suits their narrative. If we’re not on the same page here, it’s always going to be a fight. And I think that that’s really damaging because then we start moving further away from each other rather than moving closer together. And I think that that’s really important, particularly between farmers and traditional owners on a lot of other issues that are going to be on our plate to deal with together in the years to come.

Charles:

Well, it seems that really the onus right now is on the government and whilst it seems to have washed its hands and decided that releasing the order in council was the final step, at least in 2028, both traditional owners and the Victorian farmers are calling for more work and more investment from the state government. Emma Germano, thank you so much indeed for your time in speaking to us today.

Emma:

Thank you very much.