Copyright news
However, the proposal has raised alarm among scientists, wildlife groups and traditional owners, who warn it could threaten ecosystems, domestic pets and local communities. Currently, dingoes are classified as an invasive species under Queensland’s biosecurity regulations, placing them in the same category as foxes and rabbits. They cannot be sold, distributed, released into the environment, moved, fed or kept. A DPI spokesperson said the state’s biosecurity laws were under review ahead of legislative amendments expected in April 2026. “Dingoes will continue to be protected in national parks and landholders will still be able to take action to protect their livestock from wild dog or dingo attacks under the general biosecurity obligation,” the spokesperson said. Experts warned that keeping a dingo was far more demanding than owning a typical dog, often compared to managing a large zoo exhibit. Current and prospective owners in states that permit dingo ownership must commit years of care, build specialist enclosures and navigate complex state laws. Highly intelligent and athletic, dingoes are notorious escape artists with strong prey drives, making them difficult to contain and potentially dangerous to smaller animals. They are also highly sensitive and live for a long time, forming intense bonds with their keepers and rarely adjusting well if rehomed, making them a lifetime commitment for anyone considering ownership. Alix Livingstone from not-for-profit Defend the Wild told the ABC the changes could have ecological, cultural, and animal welfare consequences. “Dingoes are not dogs,” she said. “They are a genetically, evolutionarily, and behaviourally distinct species that play an irreplaceable ecological role as Australia’s apex land predator.” Dingo genetics researcher Kylie Cairns told the ABC that Queensland’s legal treatment of dingoes is contradictory. Under the Nature Conservation Act, dingoes are considered native wildlife, but under biosecurity law they are classified as pests. “It is a contradiction and it’s something that a lot of states are grappling with,” Ms Cairns said. “The way that the policy deals with that is just not workable at the moment because it makes no sense to have one being treated as native wildlife and at the same time be considered as another (domestic) dog … but that seems to be what the policy is trying to do.” Dingo ownership is already allowed in NSW and Western Australia, but both states have faced issues with over-breeding, poor welfare, and rising numbers of unwanted animals. Sydney Dingo Rescue, the nation’s largest dingo rescue group, currently cares for about 100 dingoes — 70 per cent bred in captivity — Ms Livingstone said. Dr Cairns said any Queensland licensing system would need to account for dingoes’ unique behaviour. “They’re more wild so they don’t do as well in home environments as domestic dogs,” she said. “They’re much smarter, they’re much better able to escape traditional domestic household home environments in terms of climbing up fences, and so they just don’t generally fit into most domestic settings as easily.” Sonya Takau, a Jirrbal woman and founder of Dingo Culture, told the ABC the proposal was culturally disrespectful. “From my cultural perspective and growing up with my old people, my father and my family, the dingo is very culturally significant,” Ms Takau said. “I just cannot fathom the idea of this beautiful, wild canid … a unique wild animal that is on its own evolutionarily distinct pathway, (not being classed as) separate from domestic dogs.”
