Suchergebnisse

Existing methods of reducing livestock depredation are heavily biased towards lethal control. However, criticism regarding the efficacy of such practices is rising. In Australia, over 200 years of lethal control has done little to resolve the conflict between dingoes (Canis dingo) and livestock producers. That is, killing dingoes does not necessarily prevent livestock losses. Rather than continuing with lethal control programs, there is an opportunity to shift to more innovative, effective and ethical non-lethal measures of protecting livestock from attacks. Traditionally, buffer zones (areas surrounding livestock enterprises or national parks where attempts are made to eradicate all dingoes entering that zone) have been put in place as a means to limit conflict. Although seen as more strategic than indiscriminately baiting over large areas, targeting dingoes in buffer zones does not necessarily remove problem animals. In addition, dingoes from outside baited zones eventually fill any territorial voids created. In order to break this cycle, we propose amending the traditional approach, so that instead of killing dingoes in these sensitive zones, they are excluded from production areas or otherwise discouraged from interacting with livestock (what we term 'living buffer zones'). This can, in principle, be achieved through adoption of a suite of non-lethal management approaches, including aversive conditioning, which to-date has not been widely examined. In turn, resident dingoes conditioned to avoid livestock and/or livestock areas will maintain territories that largely exclude non-resident dingoes. Occasional ingress by transient dingoes will be met by the same exclusion and aversive strategies and are likely to quickly move on if harassed by resident dingoes. Such a strategy takes advantage of our ever-increasing knowledge of dingo biology and behaviour and leverages well established principles of animal learning. By funnelling funds currently spent on killing dingoes into experimental investigations of non-lethal approaches, we conclude that significantly more livestock will actually be saved.

Carnivore conservation and management is complex and expensive, and significant ongoing management costs may inhibit the development of new tools and any subsequent transition away from lethal control. We review and compare the economic costs and benefits of dingoes and domestic dogs in Australia and suggest that public affinity for domestic dogs may be co-opted into yielding more positive management outcomes for dingoes. Whereas Australians spend over AU$10 billion annually on purchasing and maintaining 4.2 million domestic dogs, landowners and government spend at least AU$30 million attempting to limit the density and distribution of dingoes, feral dogs, and their hybrids. These contrasting investments highlight the dual response of society towards domestic and wild members of the Canis genus. We suggest that a modest conservation levy on the sale of pet dogs or dog food, or both, could secure long-term funding to support efficacious non-lethal management of dingo impacts. A modest levy could generate AU$30 million annually, funding the development of non-lethal dingo-management tools without compromising existing management practices while new tools are investigated. Ultimately, a transition away from controlling dingoes through culling or exclusion fencing, to managing the negative impacts of dingoes could result in both more successful and sustainable management outcomes of dingoes and support the ecological, cultural and economic benefits they confer as Australia's apex predator.