Hello Ian,
There are still lots of 'dog fences' in Australia, from localised fences around landfills, to the world- famous dog fence, which stretches from SA to Qld. Well maintained dog fence can be an effective barrier to wild dogs, including dingoes, but maintaining such a barrier can be challenging. Recently flooding caused substantial damage to the dog fence in western NSW. In some parts of eastern Australia native fauna, such as wombats, and introduced species, such as rabbits, literally undermine barrier fencing. Adult dingoes will sometimes push through rabbit-sized holes to access sheep and cattle properties. Barrier fencing is typically only one part of integrated strategies aimed at reducing the probability of contact between dogs and other species of interest, be they livestock, humans or threatened fauna.

Kylie,
We agree that further modifcation to human behaviour is important if we want to minimise agressive confrontations between humans and dingoes. We are open to the use of non-violent strategies so long as they do not simply shift the problem, spatially or temporally. To this end, relocation, like culling, may not always be an ideal option but we believe both should remain 'in the mix' for consideration as tools for management. We believe it is important to diagnose each scenario and then implement tailored management actions.

Hi Euan,
We didn’t avoid the contribution people make to conflict between humans and dingoes. Indeed, we stated a preference for humans to stop feeding dingoes. Further, we highlighted that people can be problematic because they won’t heed warnings.

Your arguments, at least in part, seem to be based on some points better described as assumptions, than absolutes.

Assumption 1: Human non-compliance is necessarily the result of poorly targeted education campaigns.
Even when 100% of the target human population is clearly told about the likely negative consequences of a behaviour some of those people will still behave contrary to advice, even if it threatens their own safety. Dingo management is not the only relevant example here!

Assumption 2: One can’t selectively cull dingoes.
Managers across Australia routinely remove specific, problem individuals from dingo when other proactive (preferable) and reactive (sometimes necessary) management actions have failed to prevent aggressive confrontations between dingoes and people. This is not a blanket endorsement of this strategy, simply a point of fact. With field experience, one can reliably identify individual dingoes, especially those who regularly visit areas such as campgrounds, fish cleaning areas at beaches or rubbish tips. With even more field experience working with dingoes, one can selectively trap dogs, even aggressive ones. It would be foolish to suggest this is possible 100% of the time, but it is important to note that the behaviour of aggressive dingoes makes them susceptible to selective culling. They’re the dingoes that aren’t afraid of approaching people! We have literally walked specific dingoes into foothold traps (trapping to fit GPS-collars) using ourselves as lures. Selective culling hardly qualifies as ‘nothing more than an idea on paper’

Assumption 3: Removal of particular animals leads to ‘social breakdown’.
This over-simplification is too often promulgated as fact, when in reality, it does not necessarily occur. When one kills dingoes, local populations can actually decrease, and not just from the instantaneous removal of individuals. Sometimes one removes individuals that are not part of local social groups; this occurs even without human intervention. Take your assumption further; when dogs die from natural causes do you think the local social structure falls apart and the population rapidly increases? Frequently it does not.

Assumption 4: Adults are rare in wild populations of dingoes
This is patently untrue in an absolute sense. Such a statement requires context to be relevant. Even in long-term baited sites it is not uncommon to trap very old individuals. Some people call them ‘bait-shy’ but this, too, can be an over-simplification. Equally, dingoes sometimes have large litters in sites where no lethal control occurs. If this occurs in successive seasons the population can be biased towards young dingoes without any human interference, at all.

I think it is important to acknowledge that we, all of us, still have much to learn about wild living dogs, including dingoes. Despite this, we (Tom, Peter and I) are willing to learn what we can by continuing to work with dingoes in the wild. Although you find killing dingoes ‘unethical’ many other people do not.
I reiterate our point, “…just because killing dogs is unpopular, it does not automatically make it unnecessary, or even unsound, as a strategic tool for wildlife management and protecting people”.

Kind regards,
Guy

Hi Guy,

It’s great to the have the opportunity for an open and frank discussion on this controversial topic, so I thank you and your co-authors for the opportunity.

I will begin my response by posing this question. Why when humans do things that would seem wrong or in extreme cases arrogant and ignorant (e.g. deliberately avoiding public education and/or signs etc. warning of the dangers of dingoes, or any other wild animal for that matter), and then something unfortunate happens (e.g. an attack or worse death), but never the less the ‘blame’ resides with the human, do we then 'punish' by death or removal from its native habitat, the animal responsible for the event? This seems to defy logic, not to mention morals, ethics and any sense of fairness? Most importantly, what long-term solution does killing a dingo (problem animal) provide? In my opinion none. The message it sends is human did something wrong, which is unfortunate and shouldn’t happen, but don’t worry we’ve ‘fixed’ this by killing the ‘problem’ animal. Of course nothing has been fixed, it will happen again, because as you clearly pointed out yourself some humans will always avoid warnings etc. So why then continue with the killing? What is the aim?

Rather one must persist and improve education if we are serious about stopping the problems. The same situation applies to examples such as the killing of sharks and crocodiles following lethal attacks. We must take responsibility for our own actions if we ever want to progress as a society, and shifting the blame to the animals only delays this.

To address some of your other points:

“Assumption 1: Human non-compliance is necessarily the result of poorly targeted education campaigns.”

See above

“Assumption 2: One can’t selectively cull dingoes”

I did not mean to imply it is impossible (having seen hundreds of dingoes in the wild I’m fully aware that individuals can be identified), so sorry for any confusion I may have created, but we both know that the reality is that targeted baiting of ‘problem dogs’ is a rarity as opposed to what really happens most of the time and in most of Australia. 1080 baiting, trapping and shooting is almost always done in a way that doesn’t target individuals, as its aim is to reduce overall numbers, and hence is not selective. To say the removal of individual dingoes across Australia is ‘routine’ is questionable.

“Assumption 3: Removal of particular animals leads to ‘social breakdown”

Please read the paper here http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006861 to see how killing dingoes leads to unpredictable population responses. You are right to say populations can actually decrease following killing dingoes, but again this is not what I meant entirely. What I was suggesting is they don’t always, which must be a real concern if that is the overall management aim? I would also draw your attention to this research:

http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/00018.doc

Allen, L.R. 2000 Measuring predator control effectiveness: reducing numbers may not reduce predator impact. Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate Pest Control Conference, San Diego California 7-9th March pgs

Allen, L.R. and Gonzalez, A. 1998. Baiting reduces dingo numbers, changes age structures yet often increases calf losses. Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference, Bunbury W.A. 11:421-428.).

All four of these studies above demonstrate the unwanted consequences of lethal control.

“Sometimes one removes individuals that are not part of local social groups; this occurs even without human intervention. Take your assumption further; when dogs die from natural causes do you think the local social structure falls apart and the population rapidly increases?”

It simply makes no sense at all to assume the natural death of individuals in populations comes anywhere close to what occurs during the majority of pest management operations (see above), so I won’t bother with addressing this point any further.

“Assumption 4: Adults are rare in wild populations of dingoes”

Lee Allen, one of the most experienced and well-respected dingo/wild dog experts has said as much, in that in Qld for example, the population is dominated by young/juveniles. I therefore stand by this point and have no reason to expect it is not true where ongoing baiting, shooting and trapping occurs. It’s a numbers game, if baiting, trapping and shooting is constant, how many dogs are truly likely to make it to an old age? You only need look at harvested populations to see what happens.

“…just because killing dogs is unpopular, it does not automatically make it unnecessary, or even unsound, as a strategic tool for wildlife management and protecting people”.

To respond to this I refer you to the start and reiterate, what if anything do we learn and achieve from these actions?

Mister Anderson,
No we didn't mention indigenous Australians in the article but we have, and continue to work with traditional owners. I won't try to speak for the range of indigenous people we've worked with but can relay that, unsurpisingly, people's attitudes to dingo management vary within and between communities.

Regards,
Guy