A SHORT-term solution has been reached over the issue of wild dog control permits for Recognised Biosecurity Groups (RBGs) after the Department of Biosecurity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) did a "backflip" on its position to sign off on control permits for the next 12 months.
Esperance Biosecurity Association (EBA) chairman Scott Pickering, Cascade, said after a month of discussions the DBCA had "buckled" and "reversed its decision" to sign off on permits that would allow RBG doggers to work on Crown Land after it wanted the volunteers to take on the responsibility of the permits themselves.
In State Parliament earlier this month, Environment Minister Stephen Dawson said that the DBCA was responsible for wild dog control on its own land but that "all permits previously held by the DBCA for wild dog management in the Esperance region have expired".
He said the DBCA was currently working with other relevant government agencies and the RBGs to clarify the arrangements for the permits that were required to undertake wild dog control for agricultural protection purposes on DBCA-managed lands.
Mr Pickering said five other RBGs in the State were behind its efforts to resolve the issue.
"The DBCA has decided to sign off on permits for the next 12 months - we are waiting for the minister to do that," Mr Pickering said.
"Hopefully they will go back to what it was before so doggers can get back to work.
"It's their land.
"We're not signing the permits because that makes us liable - why should we as volunteers be liable for what happens on Crown Land?
"Common sense has prevailed - what they were doing was not 'good neighbour policy'."
Central Wheatbelt Biosecurity Association acting chairman Chris Patmore said the RBG spent about 50 per cent of its time trying to get the DBCA and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) to try and "do its job", which it shouldn't have to do.
"They should uphold their own responsibilities," Mr Patmore said.
He said the CWBA had a similar issue with the DBCA that the EBA had - except it was for aerial baiting and control.
"They don't want to take responsibility for the aerial baiting because they don't have control over it," he said.
"They are not prepared to spend the money themselves on it but they are more interested in tourism than they are in conservation."
Mr Patmore said one of the issues that DBCA had was allowing tourists onto parkland with their dogs off a leash.
He said restricting pets from the area or keeping them on a leash would enable doggers to do their work while keeping the reserve available for holiday makers to enjoy.
Mr Patmore hoped that DPIRD and the DBCA would initiate discussions with RBGs in the next few months before the new permits (which they are still waiting to be signed off on) expired so that they could continue work through the issues and operate effectively in managing wild dogs.
"A 12-month permit is about the best we could hope for at the moment," Mr Patmore said.
"The last I heard the local guys haven't signed off on them, and we are hoping it is done in the next few days.
"We need to know soon because we have already ordered the helicopter and baits for this season.
"Unless we get access we have to cancel it."
The Nationals WA spokesperson for agriculture Colin de Grussa welcomed the decision of DBCA to "reverse its decision to effectively transfer all legal liability and risk for the control of wild dogs on government land to RBGs".
Mr de Grussa wrote to Mr Dawson in August, after RBGs had contacted him outlining their concerns.
He also highlighted the issue in Parliament in early September and had been working constructively with the minister on a solution.
"The Nationals have pushed hard for this outcome since being contacted by RBGs, as we strongly believed that legal responsibility for wild dog control activities on land that is owned and managed by the government should not be carried by volunteers," Mr de Grussa said.
"I thank the minister for his efforts to find a way forward in the short-term while working towards a longer term solution to the issue."
Mr de Grussa said the DBCA would continue to hold the permits for the next 12 months to ensure the spring wild dog control program could proceed.
This should also allow time for a workable longer term solution to be negotiated between RBGs and the government.
In early September Mr de Grussa expressed his concern, saying the government was ultimately responsible for controlling wild dogs on the land they managed, including unallocated crown land.
"This is an extraordinary set of circumstances," he said.
"In May the government was lauding the important role played by RBGs in protecting the State's $1.6 billion sheep industry from wild dogs while, at the very same time, treating them with absolute disdain by forcing them to take on a responsibility which is absolutely inappropriate for a group of volunteers."
