Dingo dualisms: Exploring the ambiguous identity of Australian dingoes

Abstract

How wildlife is defined, and which wildlife is accorded protection, emerges from competing constructions of nature and culture. Few species of Australian wildlife have as ambiguous an identity as dingoes. This paper identifies three dualisms that characterise discourses relating to Australian dingoes Canis lupus dingo. They are at once classified as both a pest and protected species, perceived to be feral and native, and most recently categorised as either pure or hybrid. It is argued that these dualisms are underpinned by different versions of the nature-culture dichotomy. Portrayals and perceptions of dingoes around Australia are explored to reveal how different aspects of the dualisms identified are drawn upon within different contexts. Illustrations of the contradictory constructions of dingoes highlight the need to critically deconstruct discourses relating to wildlife, particularly when they inform actions. As such, this paper demonstrates the important contribution a discourse-sensitive approach can make to understanding human perceptions of wildlife.

Seven considerations about dingoes as biodiversity engineers: the socioecological niches of dogs in Australia

“…In Australia, dogs are introduced animals, with archaeological, morphometric and genetic evidence pointing to likely introduction of the dingo arriving with Asian traders from 4000 years ago (Corbett 1985;Savolainen et al 2004), a process that might have continued until the 1920s (Corbett 2001). Although dingoes are found in other parts of the world (Corbett 1985(Corbett , 2001, they are an iconic and charismatic species with significant cultural and intrinsic value to most Australians (Atkinson 2008;Smith and Litchfield 2009;Hytten 2009). The feral domestic dog component of Australian free-ranging dog populations has been contributing to the dog gene pool since early European settlement (Fleming et al 2001).…”

“Fox Tots Attack Shock”: Urban Foxes, Mass Media and Boundary-Breaching

“…Knight (2000), argues that this kind of boundary-breaching is associated with particular conflicts between humans and animals, and the rhetorical construction of such animals as pests via 'pestilence discourses'. The broader literature on human-wildlife conflict also reveals that representations of animals in such cases are often highly dichotomous (Cassidy, 2011;Hytten, 2009;Jones, 1999), as we have seen here with both urban and rural foxes in the UK. The negative aspect of such constructions is often exaggerated to reinforce reactions of fear and disgust, which then in turn are used to justify human actions against such 'pest' or 'vermin' animals.…”

“…Such categorisations include domesticated/wild; pet/working/agricultural; charismatic wildlife/pest; food/not-food. These categories vary across cultures and historical periods, suggesting that they must be constantly maintained by society in order to function in our ordering of human/animal relations (Herzog, 2010;Hytten, 2009, Knight, 2000. Furthermore, the position of the fox as a predator, and in this case a predator which has harmed human children, accentuates its position not only as a pest, but a competitor and source of danger to 'us'.…”

“…In contrast, high levels of fear and anxiety are expressed around the co-existence or potential co-existence of humans and wolves, relative to the risk of injury from these animals (Buller, 2008). Work on the role of the dingo, (a wild dog) in Australian society highlights how representations of the animal, and the risks it poses, are dualistic and ambivalent, shifting from cherished native wildlife to an invasive, violent pest (Healy, 2007;Hytten, 2009). A similar ambivalence has already been noted in representations of foxes (Wallen, 2006), and it is probable that this is related to their breaching of human-animal boundaries (Marvin, 2000).…”

Top-Predators as Biodiversity Regulators: Contemporary Issues Affecting Knowledge and Management of Dingoes in Australia

“…Alternatively, dingoes might help to reduce the impacts of smaller predators (such as introduced red foxes Vulpes vulpes or feral cats) on threatened fauna through intraguild predation or exploitative competition [40,41], yet have detrimental effects on the same fauna through predation [15,16] and/or disease transmission [42,43]. Human attitudes towards dingoes are also variable [22,[44][45][46]. Hence, it should not be surprising to discover evidence for diverse and contrasting functions and values of dingoes in different places and at different times, which adds complexity to their best-practice management [35].…”