What does South Australia’s dingo bounty really cost?

Across Australia, dingoes are slowly being recognised for what they are:  Australia’s local apex predator with deep cultural significance and an important ecological role.  

Yet in many jurisdictions they continue to be subjected to widespread lethal control through baiting, trapping and shooting, due to policies that still classify them as pests or biosecurity threats. 

In 2023, Victoria ended its dingo bounty, acknowledging that bounty schemes are ineffective and inconsistent with contemporary wildlife management. South Australia, however, remains one of the few states still operating a government-funded bounty on dingoes. 

At a time when the science is clear about the risks of broadscale lethal control, this approach is increasingly difficult to justify. 

 

What the data shows 

Official figures from the South Australian Government reveal that 776 dingoes have been killed under the bounty scheme to date. Each animal attracts a $120 payment, meaning $93,120 in public funds has already been spent incentivising the killing of Australia’s own predator. 

The bounty was introduced in 2020 as a drought relief measure and was intended to run until the allocated $100,000 budget was exhausted. The vast majority of payments were made in the first three years of the program. Since then, uptake has steadily declined, with just six bounties paid in 2023, four in 2024, and three in 2025. 

But these figures are more than an accounting exercise. Dingoes live in structured family groups, with dominant breeding pairs and cooperative pack dynamics. Removing hundreds of individuals from a landscape does not simply reduce population size in a neat or predictable way. It can fragment stable packs, disrupt breeding hierarchies, and increase dispersal and reproduction. 

Research shows that when older, stable animals are removed, younger dingoes may breed earlier and move more widely. In some cases, this destabilisation can increase livestock conflict rather than reduce it. Killing 776 dingoes is not just a statistic. It represents a substantial disruption to the ecological fabric of South Australia’s rangelands. 

 

Why language matters: “wild dogs” or dingoes? 

The South Australian Government refers to dingoes as “wild dogs”. The term “wild dog” groups together dingoes, dingo–dog hybrids and feral domestic dogs. But recent DNA research shows that hybridisation is far less widespread than previously assumed, and that most wild dingoes have little to no domestic dog ancestry. Continuing to label dingoes as “wild dogs” blurs this distinction and makes it easier to justify policies that treat an Australian apex predator as a pest. 

Further to that, the dingo fence, constructed to separate sheep grazing areas in the south from pastoral regions in the north, effectively divides the state into two management zones. South of the fence, dingoes are treated as pests and subject to destruction. North of the fence, they are recognised as Australian wildlife, though they remain unprotected. In practice, this means the same Australian animal is treated very differently depending on which side of a fence it stands. 

As researchers have argued, dingoes are one of Australia’s most misunderstood and mismanaged native species. The language we use matters. It shapes public perception and underpins policy decisions. 

 

The cultural and ecological role of dingoes 

Dingoes are Australia’s largest land-based predator. As apex predators, they help regulate ecosystems by suppressing overabundant herbivores and limiting mesopredators. For example, healthy dingo populations can reduce total grazing pressure in some landscapes by keeping kangaroo and introduced herbivore numbers in check, while also suppressing introduced predators such as foxes and cats through direct killing and competition. 

They also hold deep cultural significance for First Nations peoples. At the 2023 National Inaugural First Nations Dingo Forum, representatives from more than 20 Nations called for an immediate end to the deliberate killing of dingoes on Country and for governments to stop using the term “wild dog”. Dingoes are regarded by many as “the boss of Country”, integral to healthy landscapes and healthy communities. Modern wildlife management must reflect both scientific evidence and cultural knowledge. Blanket bounty schemes do neither. 

 

There is a better way 

Lethal control has been used for generations, yet livestock losses have not disappeared. In some cases, removing stable dingo packs can make problems worse by disrupting social structures and increasing movement across the landscape. 

With only a handful of bounties paid in recent years and around $7,000 still remaining in the budget, the South Australia’s bounty program is clearly winding down. Rather than prolonging a scheme that has delivered limited recent uptake, the Government should draw a line under it. The Government should be investing in practical, evidence-based coexistence measures. 

Non-lethal tools are increasingly recognised as more sustainable and effective over the long term. Guardian animals, improved fencing, better husbandry practices and targeted deterrents can reduce conflict while allowing dingoes to persist in the landscape. Investing public funds in these approaches would support producers while addressing the root causes of conflict. 

Victoria recognised that bounty schemes are not the answer and ended its program in 2023. South Australia should do the same. 

 

It’s time to end the bounty 

Public money should not be used to incentivise the killing of Australia’s own apex predator, particularly where the evidence shows this approach can destabilise ecosystems and fail to deliver lasting outcomes. 

South Australia has an opportunity to move toward contemporary, science-based and culturally respectful wildlife management. Ending the dingo bounty is a necessary first step. 

If you believe South Australia should follow Victoria’s lead and end the dingo bounty, add your voice today.  

Take action now and call on the South Australian Government to end the dingo bounty and invest in non-lethal strategies for managing dingo conflicts with landholders.