Wild dogs

When we think of feral animals – descended from domesticated animals and now living in the wild – we are most likely to think of rabbits, foxes, camels, and cats. As environmental managers we are likely to focus on their impacts on wildlife, through direct predation or competition for food and habitat, though some species’ impacts on agricultural production cause public concern. Two articles in this issue prompt us to consider the importance of studying wild dogs, from both ecological and commercial perspectives, and further research opportunities.

In Australia, wild dogs are defined as feral dogs, dogs that run wild, and dingo-dog hybrids with the exception of recognised breeds such as the Australian Cattle Dog (Queensland Heeler) and the Australian Kelpie (Agriculture Victoria 2016). In New Zealand, a few historical records suggest that wild dogs are partially descended from Maori and Polynesian dogs (Anderson 1981; Drummond 1913; White 1889). In both countries they were noted from the mid-1800s, in relation to stock predation, though numbers apparently declined in New Zealand by the early 1900s (Drummond 1913) while remaining an issue at least into the 1980s. In Australia, some authors such as Ecker et al. (2017, this issue) include the dingo in the category ‘wild dog’. Wild dogs are widespread throughout mainland Australia, found in most places apart from intensive wheat growing areas (Ecker et al. 2015; Invasive Animals CRC 2016; Wicks et al. 2014).

The Invasive Animals CRC (2016), which has a substantial research program on wild dogs, points out that where wild dogs kill native wildlife they are considered a problem, especially where their impacts compound other threats, but where they prey on foxes, feral cats and rabbits, they are considered beneficial. In agriculture, wild dogs are recognised for killing livestock, especially sheep, and transferring diseases (Wicks et al. 2014). The scale of the problem has not been well documented. Wicks et al. (2014) cite literature and their own national survey data to suggest that two thirds of landholders had experienced wild dog problems in the year prior to survey, and those reporting problems lost some 100 animals each with a further 60–70 animals injured (Wicks et al. 2014, p. 2). This study modelled large economic benefits from wild dog control, given certain assumptions, with benefits possibly reaching $30–50 million over 20 years in each of three case study areas representing considerable proportions of their states. Estimates are hampered by lack of information on the actual costs of control.

Most of the effort and cost of wild dog control lies with landholders (private and public), who may vary in motivation, consistency and willingness to pay for management. This is typical for management of all pest species, plant and animal. Governments treat the issues seriously, using a range of supportive mechanisms including regulatory support, some programs, and support for research. Under the Biosecurity Act 2014 landholders have a legal responsibility to control wild dogs on their land. Local governments, and regional bodies for natural resource management, also support control efforts in a variety of ways. Clearly, coordinated approaches are vital, with a high degree of public participation. As Allen (2017, this issue) points out, this has proved difficult; depending on the region the areas controlled are typically less than half of the land where the dogs occur, and a mosaic of different control methods, on different timings, exacerbate the problem.

Ecker et al. (2015), citing Thompson et al. (2013), point out four tensions in managing wild dogs:

1. Where wildlife conservation objectives may differ from agricultural objectives. This concerns conservation or culling of dingos, and the positive benefits of wild dogs in suppressing predators of small mammals;

2. Animal welfare concerns, limiting the public acceptance of control options, especially lethal methods;

3. Local and community-based management versus government management, with government sometimes seen as disempowering locals, discounting their knowledge, and creating regulatory barriers to effective management; and

4. Scientific and local knowledge perspectives, such as scientists advocating different management of dingoes and wild dogs, where local people may seek removal of all types of dog.

These tensions may not be easy to resolve, given complex sets of values across Australian society and mosaics of land use in which impacts vary. Our scan of issues towards this editorial suggests a range of areas for further research, ecological, social and economic. Research should continue into the ecology and behaviour of wild dogs, their differing impacts in different livestock sectors, and their effects on wildlife. More economic research on the scale and economic impacts may help to motivate investment and effort. Social research on values and motivations amongst different sections of the community, and institutional research to inform ways that governments and communities can work effectively together to control wild dogs where it is warranted, are also important. As Allen (2017) recommends, it is also important to keep checking the ‘framing’ of the issues, since these guide decisions on management.

Cover photo

This year we feature an image on mining, one of the ‘brown’ environmental issues of interest to EIANZ members. While new mines, and the relevance of coal mining to greenhouse gas emissions and risks to the Great Barrier Reef, are highly controversial, it is easy to forget that mines such as this gold mine in Kalgoorlie can be mainstays of rural economies, and also that most of us use mined products, every day. Try counting the metals in your clothing and bag today. We thank Shelley Ross, of Flying the Outback, for the image.

In this issue we present two articles on wild dogs, inspiring our lead commentary, two works on adaptive management, and a new planning framework for urban waterway management.

Lee Allen takes a critical view of the belief that Australia’s wild dog problem is best tackled at landscape scale, through lethal control programs. He argues that wild dogs mainly affect the sheep and goat industry, not all livestock, thus not all landholders necessarily need to be involved. Further, it is difficult to maintain low dog densities at landscape scale, and wild dogs can have positive or neutral effects for some landholders. It would be better to focus on preventing dog access to properties troubled by their predation, through strategies such as fencing and guardian animals.

Saan Ecker, Patricia Please and Darryl Maybery combined qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the psychological stress caused in landholders by wild dog attacks on their livestock. Their study investigated landholder psychological stress associated with wild dog attacks on farm livestock in Australia. Impacts included persistent thoughts of the dog attack issue, lack of sleep, anger and frustration, impacts on relationships at a personal, business and community level and time involved in dealing with the issue. The study verifies the psychological impacts experienced by landholders dealing with wild dog attacks. The findings can help decision-makers to consider the well-being of landholders, their families and communities in wild dog management policy and programs.

Lyndal Hasselman provides a useful service to academics and practitioners by attempting to distinguish and explain variations in terminology associated with adaptive management. She attributes implementation problems partially to confusion about the definition of adaptive management. She distinguishes the dimensions of adaptive management, adaptive co-management and adaptive governance, articulates their relationships, and proposes clear definitions. She suggests further work on the implications of adaptive management for governance, and how these implications could be addressed.

Tony Prato has developed a multiple-objective adaptive management framework to identify preferred management actions when there is uncertainty about one or more system drivers, such as climate change, in coupled human and natural systems. It is particularly valuable where there are multiple planning periods and management objectives. The framework focuses on: (1) selecting management actions and objectives; (2) establishing standards for objectives; (3) choosing budgets, drivers, and driver scenarios; (4) estimating management objectives; (5) identifying acceptable management actions; (6) determining preferred management actions; and (7) evaluating whether or not adaptive management is advantageous in the circumstances required. He demonstrates the use of the framework to manage a hypothetical highway corridor in a national park. Prato suggests the proposed framework is easier for managers to understand and apply than other fuzzy decision-making frameworks, but nevertheless presents certain challenges including reliable data.

Bethany Cooper, Lin Crase, and Darryl Maybery present a simple and practical typology, consisting of ecological and amenity values associated with waterways, to assist urban planners and waterway managers in a practical way. It enables both types of benefits to be incorporated into economic measurement techniques, and provides a vehicle for ensuring important values are not overlooked as part of the planning process. They illustrate the application of the framework with respect to Melbourne’s waterways.

AJEM announcements

We welcome Thilak Mallawaarachchi, of The University of Queensland, as Associate Editor, to focus on economic and business topics. Thilak is a resource economist, with breadth across natural systems and agriculture in Australia and in developing countries. He is a former employee of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, and CSIRO.

Editors’ tip – What is ‘open access’ publication?

There are two main financial models for publishing academic work. The longstanding ‘conventional’ model, which this journal with most others follows, involves authors publishing their work at no direct cost, despite the many hours of work and resources it takes to publish. Readers pay, either through their libraries, or by buying a single copy. The alternate model is for readers to have free access, which is a boon to those in the developing world. Who pays then? Authors do, or their sponsors such as research grants. Some countries are beginning to sponsor publication by their academics. As the cost is hefty, in the range of $2000–3000 per article in most genuine journals, this is a barrier to non-academics, students and early career academics, and also to prolific authors. Thus there are merits and disadvantages to either system. A further distinction is between ‘gold’ and ‘green’ open access. ‘Gold’ is complete open access, anyone can obtain the article without any restrictions. ‘Green’ is a limited form of open access, such as when authors may place one copy of their work, usually the pre-finalisation word document rather than the publisher’s typeset copy, in their university repository (to which public access is very limited). Some journals, including AJEM and many of Taylor & Francis publications, have a mixed model, predominantly using the conventional model but some articles may be open access.