Pets and pests: a review of the contrasting economics and fortunes of dingoes and domestic dogs in Australia, and a proposed new funding scheme for non-lethal dingo management

Abstract

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.

Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife

“…Respondents who were female, younger, and/or a dog/cat owner showed less acceptance of strategies that cause wild dog and cat deaths directly due to human intervention. These findings support the work of others who argue the existence of the strong bond between humans, dogs and cats [ 2 , 14 ], the prominence of animal welfare concerns [ 35 ], and social and cultural factors affect people’s opinions and attitudes about different management strategies [ 30 , 36 , 37 ]. Females and dog and cat owners were overrepresented so our descriptive results (i.e., results in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 , and Table 3 ) could have been affected by selection bias (i.e., could be biased relative to the entire Queensland population).…”

“…In the same way, it is possible that a person's view of the importance of various options for controlling domestic (owned) dogs and cats is driven by the person's underlying beliefs and consequent attitudes. As others have argued (see, for example, [14,36]), we also contend that managing dog/cat encounters with wildlife is not only a matter of managing the animals, but also about addressing the human behaviours that are the root of the problem. Thus, there is a need to understand socio-demographic factors that shape human attitudes towards dog and cat management strategies.…”

“…In the case of managing dog and cat populations' impacts on wildlife, public opinions are conditioned by the strong bond that exists between humans and dogs and cats [2,14], public concerns for the welfare of both domestic animals and wildlife [35] and structural and cultural factors that affect people's attitudes to (and uses of) different management strategies [30,36,37]. Animal welfare concerns, in particular, encompass multiple species and forms.…”

Conservation concerns associated with low genetic diversity for K’gari–Fraser Island dingoes

“…While the timing of the arrival of dingoes in Australia is still under debate and may be anywhere between 3500 and 18,000 YBP 10 – 12 , 43 , it is uncertain whether the founder population existed prior to the island’s separation from the mainland (~ 6000 YBP 29 ), or whether the founder population was a result of repeated, small-scale, assisted migration events associated with the K’gari’s traditional owners 68 . Additionally, K’gari has not been immune to the post-colonial persecution of dingoes that occurs throughout Australia, which is best exemplified by the bounty system on dingo scalps that still exists under many jurisdictions in non-protected estate 17 . For instance, prior to K’gari being gazetted as a national park and achieving World Heritage status, there is documentation of a large-scale culling event (~ 100 individuals) initiated by one person to take advantage of the scalp bounty in the early 1900s 68 .…”

“…Although dingoes are listed as threatened in Victoria and protected as native wildlife in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, they are also declared pests in all Australian states and territories. In Queensland, they are protected under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 in conservation areas such as national parks but listed as a declared pest under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 , with an impetus for landowners to cull them under the Biosecurity Act 2015 17 . This contradictory legal status results in the dingo being protected in some areas (national parks, Aboriginal reserves), but subject to lethal control elsewhere 18 .…”