By Dr Matthew J Muir BVSc/BVetBiol (Hons) MRCVS
Australia is wealthy, educated, and ecologically extraordinary—and yet, we lead the world in mammal extinctions. It's a brutal irony: as our economy has grown, our biodiversity has plummeted.
One of the most powerful, yet under-acknowledged symbols of this paradox is the Dingo Fence—a 5,614-kilometre line etched across the continent, built to exclude one native species for the benefit of agriculture. But in 2025, should it still stand?
As a veterinary biologist with a background in rural veterinary practice, and having grown up in regional New South Wales, I’ve long seen the complex balance between conservation and farming firsthand. While I believe we must restore ecological function, we also need to respect the challenges faced by graziers and the cultural weight of predator control. I was particularly struck by a 2022 article in Australian Geographic titled "The Dog Fence: what future for this iconic but contentious barrier?" . It led me to reflect on what the Dingo Fence says about Australia’s uneasy relationship with wildness—and what tearing it down might mean for biodiversity, climate resilience, and agriculture.
Dingoes: Villains or Ecological Saviours?
The Dingo Fence was constructed in the early 1900s to protect sheep flocks from predation. But dingoes are now understood as more than livestock threats—they're keystone predators that regulate ecosystems.
Some may argue that wild (feral) dogs are different from dingoes, or that dingoes are an introduced species—albeit several thousand years ago. Either way, with the extinction of apex predators like Thylacoleo and the Thylacine (for now), dingoes and wild dogs alike fill the apex predator ecological niche.
In areas where dingoes persist, invasive species like red foxes and feral cats are suppressed. This effect, known as mesopredator suppression, is crucial. Cats and foxes are devastating native mammals and ground-nesting birds. Dingoes help tip the scales back in favour of species like the, once-thought extinct night parrot, bilby, and crest-tailed mulgara that fare better in landscapes where apex predators still rule.
Remarkably, even kangaroos have begun to evolve differently on either side of the fence—those protected from dingoes are larger, with different behaviours and population densities. The fence is not just dividing land but potentially driving the emergence of divergent sub-populations. Surely this suggests the need to restore dingo populations and ecological function on the southern (eastern) side as well.
Like the famous wolves of Yellowstone, by keeping kangaroos and other herbivores on the move, dingoes can improve groundcover. A more intact groundcover not only slows erosion and improves water retention but also reduces surface temperatures by preventing heat radiation from bare soils—making ecosystems more resilient in a warming climate. These effects also support greater carbon sequestration in soils, contributing to climate mitigation alongside biodiversity gains. Another intriguing possibility is whether dingo induced ground cover, namely grass, on the eastern side may unlock higher livestock carrying capacities.
The Fence Isn't a True Barrier Anymore
Importantly, there is no strong evidence that dingo populations would explode if the fence were removed. While some expansion into underpopulated habitats may occur, dingo numbers are regulated by food, water availability, and territorial behaviour. Stable packs tend to self-regulate population density. More than simply removing the fence, effective ecological function requires reducing indiscriminate control measures and allowing stable pack structures to reform.
Dingoes are already found on both sides of the fence. What differs is how they're treated: on the “protected” side, they're relentlessly culled. On the western “wild” side, they are increasingly tolerated or even protected.
Lethal control may disrupt pack structure and increase conflict with livestock, as disrupted packs often have more breeding pairs and fewer coordinated hunting behaviours.
On the western, “wild” side of the fence, some landholders have reported that when dingoes aren’t persecuted, they appear to teach their young to avoid livestock and instead focus on natural prey like kangaroos. This anecdotal observation suggests that allowing stable dingo populations may also promote learned behaviours that support coexistence.
Importantly, carrying capacity plays a key role in regulating dingo populations. Studies such as Allen et al. (2015) suggest that dingo abundance is limited by food availability, not just control pressure.
Kangaroo Overload and the Real Cost of Ferals
In the absence of dingoes, populations of herbivores like kangaroos, feral deer, pigs, and goats have increased:
Kangaroos: Over $1.4 billion/year in pasture competition
Feral deer: $91.3 million/year
Feral pigs: >$100 million/year
Feral goats: ~$25 million/year
Meanwhile, wild dog losses are estimated at $66 million/year. To put this into perspetive, kangaroo cost about $40 million/day.
It’s also worth noting that the $66 million figure likely includes the cost of lethal control programs—not just losses from predation.
Foxes also impose significant agricultural costs—estimated at around $227 million annually in predation, control, and disease risk.
Feral cats cause less direct livestock predation, but they contribute to around $12 million in agricultural losses by spreading diseases like toxoplasmosis and sarcocystosis, which affect sheep and goats and can lead to reproductive failure and carcass condemnation.
It’s also worth considering how rabbits fit into this equation. Though widespread on both sides of the Dingo Fence—rabbits are still partially managed through viral biocontrols like Myxomatosis and Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease Virus (RHDV). These remain moderately effective, particularly in arid regions, when combined with warren ripping and baiting. However, because foxes are highly effective rabbit predators, their suppression by dingoes could, in some areas, lead to increased rabbit numbers. While dingoes do hunt rabbits, they are not as efficient at controlling them. This highlights the need to maintain targeted rabbit control as part of any broader invasive animal strategy. If the Dingo Fence were removed, integrated pest management—balancing dingo, fox, and herbivore dynamics—would be essential to prevent unintended rabbit population rebounds.
Guardian Animals: Science-Backed, Farmer-Proven
Non-lethal protection is working and necessary when considering changing how dingoes are managed in Australia. Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs), especially Maremmas, are proven effective at reducing predation—especially when trained and used in pairs. Donkeys and alpacas have also shown protective effects in some systems, providing additional options for integrated predator deterrence.
Systemic uptake of guardian animals may also allow farmers west of the fence to reevaluate their enterprise mix, i.e revise what type of livestock they can run, however, a greater understanding of how guardian animals may work on very large properties is needed.
And perhaps even more inspiring, in India’s Gir Forest, wild Asiatic lions coexist with local communities in agricultural landscapes. Many farmers have learned to live alongside these apex predators, adapting grazing practices and developing mutual respect. This gives hope that even large carnivores can coexist with people when there is a shared sense of stewardship and resilience.
Global Lessons: What If We Paid Farmers to Coexist?
For operations with ultra-high-value livestock or vulnerable individual animals, targeted exclusion fencing can offer protection without fragmenting entire ecosystems, beyond this insurance schemes could be explored.
In snow leopard and jaguar regions, communities use insurance schemes to offset losses instead of killing predators. Australia could implement similar models at scale.
However, it's important to consider that while financial incentives can be effective, fostering an intrinsic motivation to protect and coexist with wildlife—rooted in cultural values and a deep connection to the land—may offer more sustainable and heartfelt conservation outcomes.
Indigenous Voices
In 2023, a National Dingo Forum brought together First Nations leaders, ecologists, and land managers to call for culturally respectful coexistence and better recognition of dingoes’ ecological and cultural roles. These voices must be included in shaping the future of the fence.
Reallocating the $10 Million Fence Budget
Maintaining the Dingo Fence costs approximately $10 million per year. Rather than full deconstruction, some propose strategic openings or realignment of the fence—removing it in areas where dingo populations already coexist with agriculture while maintaining protection where risks remain high. This selective approach could allow for trialling coexistence in receptive regions while preserving economic safeguards where needed.
In addition to the $10 million spent on maintaining the fence, reforming wild dog control efforts could also release millions in funding that could be redirected toward evidence-based, targeted, and humane management.
Imagine if that budget were redirected into:
Guardian animal programs
Predator smart farm technology
Farmer insurance schemes and training
Targeted exclusion fencing for ultra-high-value animals
Wildlife corridors and ecosystem restoration
Integrated pest and predator management strategies
Indigenous-led conservation and dingo research initiatives
Such a reallocation could support both agricultural resilience and ecological regeneration.
We need to recognise this is a complex and culturally charged issue. Some will argue that removing the Dingo Fence exposes pastoralists to economic risk and predator conflict. However, evidence shows that stable dingo packs are less likely to predate livestock, and that current herbivore damage far outweighs wild dog losses. A phased, regionally adaptive approach—beginning with revised control methods, compensation schemes, and localised fencing for high-value animals—offers a pathway forward.
Others may fear unpredictable ecological consequences. Yet, scientific modelling indicates dingoes are limited by food availability, not absence of control alone. They already exist on both sides of the fence. Removing it strategically allows their ecological role to re-emerge where it’s safe and supported.
We must also acknowledge this is not just a scientific issue but a cultural one. The fence symbolises protection and heritage for many graziers. But perhaps it's time for a new symbol—of coexistence, ecological regeneration, and shared stewardship. First Nations voices, graziers, and conservationists alike must help shape that future.
Are We Brave Enough to Ask the Hard Questions?
Are dingoes the threat—or the solution?
Are we protecting livestock—or protecting outdated ideas?
Is fencing out dingoes helping native species—or dooming them?
Could a future without the Dingo Fence be better for both farmers and wildlife?
Have we truly listened to Australia’s First Nations communities—especially those for whom dingoes are totemic, ancestral beings and part of deep cultural law?
Are we working hard, not smart?
What blend of motivation—extrinsic compensation or intrinsic care for Country—leads to the most sustainable conservation outcomes?
Is the current approach evidence-based”
So—who left the dogs out?
If we keep them out—and stay silent—the answer might be: us.
Rewilding begins with awareness. And it demands action.
Start the conversation. Share this article. Ask your MP where they stand on the Dingo Fence. And talk with a friend about what coexistence could look like in Australia.
Because rewilding starts with awareness—but it only grows when we act together.