Just Accepted

This article has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. It is in production and has not been edited, so may differ from the final published form.

Historic accounts of the impact of dingoes on South Australia’s sheep industry that led to the construction of The Dog Fence, with notes on other wildlife abundance

Gemma Sansom , Bertram Ostendorf, David Taggart

Abstract

Context: The exclusion of dingoes from southern Australia due to the Dog Fence is thought to have had a trophic cascade effect on various wildlife and invasive species, with many ecologists now advocating for the fence to be repositioned or even decommissioned. If this were to happen, it is important to understand how and why the Dog Fence was established, as well as the impact the fence and the removal of dingoes have had on both the sheep industry and native ecosystems. Aims: This paper examines dingo impacts on the South Australian sheep industry and how these impacts led to the construction of the Dog Fence, as reported in historical print media. We examine the same sources for evidence of the ecological consequences of dingo control. Methods: A systematic review of historical newspaper articles available on Trove was conducted. Articles were manually categorised, reviewed, and analysed to understand sheep loss to dingoes, major events, dingo control methods and the ecological impacts of dingo control. Key results: The dingo had a major impact on the South Australian sheep industry from the 1840s. Various dingo control methods were implemented, including baiting and trapping, with scalp bounties offered to incentivise control. Only after these methods were combined with broad scale fencing in the 1900s did reports of dingo damage to the sheep industry subside. Reports of dingoes attacking livestock peaked between 1890 and 1910, with annual losses of up to 20% of flocks reported. As dingo control intensified during the late 1800s, reports of an increased abundance of native wildlife, including kangaroos, wallabies, and possums, were made. Conclusions: Our analysis reveals anecdotal evidence suggesting that dingoes had a detrimental impact on South Australia’s sheep industry before the establishment of the Dog Fence. However, following their exclusion, reports indicated a substantial increase in the populations of several wildlife species, leading to both ecological and economic consequences. While it seems unlikely that dingoes and sheep can co-exist without extensive management strategies, it is crucial to balance these actions to optimise both environmental and agricultural benefits. Implications: This review has increased our knowledge and understanding of the impact and role dingoes had before their exclusion from southern Australia. This knowledge is essential for future decisions and considerations into the preservation, modification or decommissioning of the Dog Fence.

WR25039  Accepted 29 August 2025

© CSIRO 2025