Victorian farmer bills state government $40,000 after more than 100 sheep killed by ‘dingoes’

← Back to the feed

Victorian farmer bills state government $40,000 after more than 100 sheep killed by ‘dingoes’

Daily Mail · 2 hours ago

A Victorian sheep farmer has invoiced the state government for A$40,000 after more than 100 sheep were killed in attacks he attributes to dingoes. The dispute highlights the tension between protecting a vulnerable dingo population in north-west Victoria and safeguarding farmers’ livestock and livelihoods.

The attacks occurred in the Mallee, where the government ended routine lethal control of dingoes in March 2024 because the local population was considered at risk of extinction. Farmers are expected to use non-lethal protections, while the government has provided more than A$2 million for monitoring, trials and advice; critics say this support does not adequately cover losses or prevention costs.

  • Farmer seeks A$40,000 after losing more than 100 sheep.
  • Dingo protections have restricted lethal control in Victoria’s Mallee.
  • Policy exposes a conservation-versus-livestock protection dispute.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Farmers argue that the state has shifted the practical cost of conserving a vulnerable predator onto individual businesses that cannot absorb repeated livestock losses. They contend that non-lethal measures can be expensive, difficult to implement across large and remote properties, and insufficient when attacks are persistent; fair conservation policy should include prompt, meaningful compensation and, where necessary, targeted control to protect livelihoods and animal welfare.

The case against

Conservation advocates argue that ending routine lethal control is necessary to prevent the local dingo population from disappearing and to protect an ecologically important native predator. They maintain that government funding for monitoring and non-lethal deterrence offers a more durable way to reduce conflict, and that compensation or targeted intervention should be carefully designed so it does not undermine recovery efforts or restore indiscriminate killing.

Government Politics World

Read the full article at the source →