The Victorian government's decision to allow dingo culling in the state's east until 2028 has reignited debate over what has been called Australia's most controversial animal.
Animal welfare group Animals Australia has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the decision, arguing it targets a vulnerable native species and ignores Traditional Owners who "treasure the dingo as a totem species."
Aboriginal groups strongly oppose the cull, citing the dingo's deep cultural significance.
A national dingo declaration, signed by more than 20 First Nations groups, states; "Lethal control should never be an option. We do not, and have never, approved the killing of dingoes. Killing dingoes is killing family."
The Taungurung Land and Waters Council emphasised that dingoes, or "Yirrangan," are crucial to the health of Taungurung Country.
Sonya Takau, of the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, called for Traditional Owners to be included in discussions about dingo management.
"We understand farmers' concerns, but we want to work alongside landholders to adopt non-lethal solutions," she said.
Executive Manager of Biocultural Landscapes Matthew Shanks said the decision disregards Taungurung lore and responsibilities to care for Country.
Dingoes are listed as vulnerable in Victoria, meaning they face a high risk of extinction in the wild.
However, successive "unprotection orders" have allowed them to be legally killed in certain areas through trapping, poisoning, and shooting.
Victoria's Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos said the government is "striking the right balance" between protecting dingoes and allowing farmers to safeguard livestock.
Critics argue the numbers do not justify the cull.
In Victoria's 16 wild dog management zones, 1,455 livestock were confirmed killed by dingoes in 2022-23—less than 0.1 per cent of the total 1.7 million head of livestock in the state.
Conservationists fear that the extended cull could push dingoes to local extinction, as seen in north-west Victoria, where a previous culling program reduced numbers to just 40 individuals before protections were reinstated.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Animals Australia (@animalsaustralia)
Animals Australia's Supreme Court challenge will test the lawfulness of the unprotection order.
Unlike other countries, Australia lacks a national animal welfare framework, with protections varying by state.
For Traditional Owners, the case is about more than conservation—it is a fight for cultural recognition.
As the legal battle unfolds, the key question remains: should economic interests outweigh the survival of one of Australia's most iconic species?
