Undermining Conservation: A Response to Greg Mifsud’s Dingo Misinformation

Greg Mifsud’s recent remarks in a Stock & Land article regarding dingoes and their conservation status are not simply misguided. They are a deliberate distortion of scientific evidence and legal reality, designed to justify continued lethal control. This is not a misunderstanding of science. It is a conscious choice to omit key facts and mislead the public.

Mifsud claims that because recent genetic studies have identified more pure dingoes than previously believed, dingoes are no longer threatened and do not need protection. This is a complete misrepresentation of both the science and the criteria used to determine conservation status. The improved ability to detect purity does not mean dingoes are secure. It means we now have a clearer picture of how fragmented, isolated and genetically compromised many of these populations have become.

DNA testing, as recently as 3 years ago, relied on low-resolution markers and broad assumptions. Those methods frequently misclassified animals with high dingo ancestry as hybrids. Today’s genomic tools, such as SNP panels and whole-genome sequencing, provide far more accuracy. They show that pure and near-pure dingoes do still exist, but often in small, isolated populations that are genetically inbred and highly vulnerable to external pressures such as lethal control and habitat disruption.

Mifsud is not unaware of this. The research is publicly available and peer-reviewed. His failure to acknowledge both Dr Kylie Cairns’ and Andrew Weeks’ research is not accidental. It is a deliberate omission, one that serves a narrative designed to strip protections from dingoes and enable more aggressive control.

He also attempts to undermine Victoria’s threatened species listing by framing it as out of step with the rest of the country and by pointing to a shift in dingo taxonomy. This argument is a distraction. Legal protection does not depend on taxonomic semantics. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 defines any organism present in Australia prior to 1400 AD as native. The dingo qualifies, regardless of whether it is called Canis dingo, Canis familiaris dingo or any other scientific label. That native status is not optional. It is embedded in federal law. These taxonomic shifts reflect academic debate and not a change in ecological or legal standing.

Victoria's listing of the dingo under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 is not an anomaly. It reflects ecological evidence, legal definitions and the need to act before small, fractured populations are lost. Denying this amounts to ignoring the purpose of conservation legislation entirely.

Mifsud’s claim that there is “plenty of land” in eastern Victoria for dingoes to live and breed safely is overly simplistic. Landscape area is not the same as functional habitat. Most of these public lands are heavily fragmented and ringed by baited buffer zones. Connectivity is poor, persecution is ongoing, and genetic exchange between populations is minimal. That is not healthy habitat. It is isolation, and it leads to genetic bottlenecks, inbreeding and long-term collapse.

Then there is the tired narrative about hybridisation. Conservation biology around the world has moved past the idea that genetic purity is the only measure of value. Wolves in Europe and America, Scottish wildcats and many other predators show varying levels of hybrid ancestry. That has not prevented them from being protected. What matters is ecological function, evolutionary history and the role the animal plays in its environment. Dingoes are apex predators. They regulate ecosystems, suppress invasive species and help maintain balance in the landscape. No domestic dog does that.

Mifsud’s refusal to acknowledge the causes of hybridisation is telling. Hybridisation has been driven largely by human actions; baiting, shooting, habitat destruction and the disruption of stable dingo packs. To use hybridisation as an argument against protection while ignoring these drivers is not just disingenuous. It is deceitful.

Perhaps the most revealing comment from Mifsud is his claim that “it doesn’t matter what they are.” That statement says everything. It shows that this is not a conversation about facts or science. It is about pushing a management agenda that disregards the native status and ecological value of the dingo.

It does matter what they are. Dingoes are native animals under federal law. They are a keystone species. They are part of this continent’s ecological and cultural heritage. They deserve protection and intelligent, science-based management, not eradication under the false pretence of neutrality.

We can support farmers and protect livestock without waging a campaign of misinformation against native wildlife. What we need now is clarity, accountability and leadership that values both biodiversity and the truth.