If we're going to complain that dingos are not a zoo animal, then we must also make the same complaint about llamas, which are even less appropriate, as they aren't even a species that exist in the wild. I think it's much more valuable to think of them as representations of the earliest form of dog must have looked like when they diverged from their common ancestor with the modern wolf.ДЄnyway, my main point is that the bigger beef should be with the llamas, which are a completely domestic species. Plus, I'd hesitate to call dingos feral when they essentially reverted to a wild or semi-wild state so soon after dogs domesticated themselves to begin with.

At what point do we give up the feral label? They came to Australia with humans, but have been living freely and without human intervention or much, if any, breeding by humans in all that time. If you consider dingos a domestic dog, then they are one of the most basal domestic dog lineages, and arose many thousands of years ago. Feral generally implies a nuisance and warranting removal or destruction.

I mean, I just can't see calling dingos 'feral,' which implies recently escaped from human care, as in within days to decades or perhaps a couple hundred years to me.

Planet zoo workshop