Camera traps are increasingly used to monitor wildlife populations and management activities. Failing to detect target occurrence and/or behaviour inhibits the robustness of wildlife surveys. Based on user‐testing, it is reasonable to expect some equipment to malfunction but other sources of failure, such as those caused by theft and vandalism, are largely unquantified. Between May 2016 and October 2017, we undertook an international survey of professional practitioners who use camera traps for wildlife research and management projects to quantify theft and vandalism, and to document the subsequent effects on project outcomes. We also sought to record the methods used by practitioners to avoid theft and vandalism and whether or not practitioners believed those actions were effective. Most (59%) of the 407 respondents were wildlife researchers and university academics. The survey results revealed that camera trap theft and vandalism is a global issue that not only adds to costs via equipment loss (approx. USD $1.48 million from n = 309 respondents between 2010 and 2015) and theft prevention (c. USD $800 000 spent by respondents between 2010 and 2015) but also influences survey design. Vandalism and theft are clearly a global problem, with responses suggesting that they occur across a diverse array of geographic locations, at varying proximity to human settlements, in multiple habitat types and across device placements. Methods to deter human interference included using camouflaging (73%), security devices such as chains (63%) and boxes (43%), use of decoy camera traps, shortening deployment periods, setting the camera relatively high or low to the ground, or moving away from human traffic. Despite this, the responses suggest that attempts to mitigate losses are often not effective. In review of our findings, we make recommendations for the future of camera trapping that requires implementation and testing.

Estimating the density of large, feral species such as wild horses at landscape scales can present a logistical hurdle for wildlife managers attempting to set density-based management targets. We undertook aerial surveys of wild horses by using a helicopter in Guy Fawkes River National Park in north-eastern New South Wales across 3 years to determine whether meaningful density estimates could be obtained efficiently by a mark-recapture technique based on recognition of individual horses. Horse groups photographed from the air on the first of two surveys conducted each year were 'marked' on the basis of a unique combination of colours and natural markings, and 'recaptured' if they were photographed and identified on the second survey. Population size was estimated with the program MARK using a range of population estimators; however, because horses appeared to be evading detection on the second survey of each year, we chose a final estimation model that accounted for detection shyness in the study species. In 2005, the density estimate was 3.8 horses per km 2 (upper and lower 95% CL = 3.5-5.7 horses per km 2 ). Following horse control in these catchments, the estimate in 2007 was 2.3 horses per km 2 (upper and lower 95% CL = 2.1-3.4 horses per km 2 ), and this change in density can be accounted for by the known number of horses removed from the survey area between survey periods. Overall, the technique proved useful for estimating densities of wild horses in deeply dissected gorge country where other estimation techniques (such as line transects) are not practical; however, low recapture rates in one of the years of the study shows that the technique may not always be applicable. Our technique should also be suitable for surveying other large mammals with broad ranges in open environments, provided recognition of individuals from unique marks is possible.

Introduced red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are a major predator of freshwater turtle nests in Australia. We evaluated the effectiveness of electric fences, in combination with individual nest protection, for shielding western saw‐shelled turtle (Myuchelys bellii: Chelidae) nests from predation by foxes. We compared the numbers of raided and intact turtle nests found in paired fenced treatment and unfenced control areas of streambank. We also individually protected all intact nests found in both area types with wire mesh or a steel cage. The total numbers of nests found in treatment and control areas did not significantly differ from parity, but significantly more intact nests were found in treatment areas and significantly more raided nests in control areas. The fences were occasionally damaged by livestock, wildlife and flooding, rendering them inoperative for varying periods of time until repair. However, foxes raided nests inside the fences on only two occasions, despite these breaks in functionality. Our study demonstrates that electric fences can provide an effective method of protecting entire nesting areas from depredation by foxes.

Summary Large carnivores can play a pivotal role in maintaining healthy, balanced ecosystems. By suppressing the abundances and hence impacts of herbivores and smaller predators, top predators can indirectly benefit the species consumed by herbivores and smaller predators. Restoring and maintaining the ecosystem services that large carnivores provide has been identified as a critical step required to sustain biodiversity and maintain functional, resilient ecosystems. Recent research has shown that Australia's largest terrestrial predator, the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo), has strong effects on ecosystems in arid Australia and that these effects are beneficial for the conservation of small mammals and vegetation. Similarly, there is evidence from south‐eastern Australia that dingoes suppress the abundance of macropods and red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). It is likely that dingoes in south‐eastern Australia also generate strong indirect effects on the prey of foxes and macropods, as has been observed in the more arid parts of the continent. These direct and indirect effects of dingoes have the potential to be harnessed as passive tools to assist biodiversity conservation through the maintenance of ecologically functional dingo populations. However, research is required to better understand dingoes' indirect effects on ecosystems and the development of dingo management strategies that allow for both the preservation of dingoes and protection of livestock.