No abstract

No abstract

The taxonomic status and systematic nomenclature of the Australian dingo remain contentious, resulting in decades of inconsistent applications in the scientific literature and in policy. Prompted by a recent publication calling for dingoes to be considered taxonomically as domestic dogs (Jackson et al. 2017, Zootaxa 4317, 201-224), we review the issues of the taxonomy applied to canids, and summarise the main differences between dingoes and other canids. We conclude that (1) the Australian dingo is a geographically isolated (allopatric) species from all other Canis, and is genetically, phenotypically, ecologically, and behaviourally distinct; and (2) the dingo appears largely devoid of many of the signs of domestication, including surviving largely as a wild animal in Australia for millennia. The case of defining dingo taxonomy provides a quintessential example of the disagreements between species concepts (e.g., biological, phylogenetic, ecological, morphological). Applying the biological species concept sensu stricto to the dingo as suggested by Jackson et al. (2017) and consistently across the Canidae would lead to an aggregation of all Canis populations, implying for example that dogs and wolves are the same species. Such an aggregation would have substantial implications for taxonomic clarity, biological research, and wildlife conservation. Any changes to the current nomen of the dingo (currently Canis dingo Meyer, 1793), must therefore offer a strong, evidence-based argument in favour of it being recognised as a subspecies of Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758, or as Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, and a successful application to the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature - neither of which can be adequately supported. Although there are many species concepts, the sum of the evidence presented in this paper affirms the classification of the dingo as a distinct taxon, namely Canis dingo.

Canids form a large part of Indigenous Australian life and mythology, an association first developed with the dingo, and later with the domestic dog. The relationship between canids and Indigenous Australians is intricate, but unique in that these peoples never domesticated the wild dingo. Neither were dingoes and dogs seen as a source of food nor in many cases considered practical hunting assistants, yet they were highly prized. Apart from featuring heavily in Indigenous Australian spirituality (The Dreaming), advantages of camp dingoes and dogs include them being protectors or guardians, "bed warmers," and companions. However, these benefits were weighed against the many associated social and economic costs incurred such as disruption to camp life and religious ceremony, burden on camp food supply and storage, and potential source of disease. This review explores the relationship between Indigenous Australians, dingoes and dogs, and attempts to explain why dingoes, and later dogs, were kept, yet not domesticated. By bringing together the many disparate observations made by early anthropologists, insight into traditional human-canid relationships may be gleaned.

No abstract

Wild predators that attack people represent a significant challenge to the management authorities charged with conserving populations whilst minimising human safety risk. Fraser Island is home to an iconic population of dingoes (Canis dingo). However, conflict stemming from negative human–dingo interactions (incidents), some resulting in serious human injury and in one case, a fatality, is an ongoing concern. In an effort to highlight important factors influencing incident dynamics, we investigated the most serious incident reports gathered by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service for the period 2001–15. We found a consistent pattern of incidents peaking in March/April and also July, corresponding with dingo breeding and whelping seasons (respectively). Monthly vehicle permit numbers (a proxy for visitation) were not positively correlated with incident rates, except during the breeding season. Male dingoes, particularly subadult males, featured heavily in incidents. Despite the fatality being highly publicised and the advent of copious on-site warning messages and other management interventions, serious incidents continue to occur annually, including some involving children. This suggests that risks are either not always understood, or are otherwise being ignored. While our results demonstrate that dingoes generally pose minimal risk to humans, some risk remains, particularly where poorly supervised children are concerned.

Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human-wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence.

Simple SummaryThe potential for reconfiguring pet ownership from a risk factor to a protective factor for natural disaster survival has been recently proposed. But how might this resilience-building proposition apply to members of the community who are already considered vulnerable? This article addresses this important question by synthesizing information about what makes seven particular groups vulnerable, the challenges to increasing their resilience and how animals figure in their lives. It concludes that animal attachment could provide a novel conduit for accessing, communicating with and motivating vulnerable people to engage in resilience building behaviors that promote survival and facilitate recovery.AbstractIncreased vulnerability to natural disasters has been associated with particular groups in the community. This includes those who are considered de facto vulnerable (children, older people, those with disabilities etc.) and those who own pets (not to mention pets themselves). The potential for reconfiguring pet ownership from a risk factor to a protective factor for natural disaster survival has been recently proposed. But how might this resilience-building proposition apply to vulnerable members of the community who own pets or other animals? This article addresses this important question by synthesizing information about what makes particular groups vulnerable, the challenges to increasing their resilience and how animals figure in their lives. Despite different vulnerabilities, animals were found to be important to the disaster resilience of seven vulnerable groups in Australia. Animal attachment and animal-related activities and networks are identified as underexplored devices for disseminating or ‘piggybacking’ disaster-related information and engaging vulnerable people in resilience building behaviors (in addition to including animals in disaster planning initiatives in general). Animals may provide the kind of innovative approach required to overcome the challenges in accessing and engaging vulnerable groups. As the survival of humans and animals are so often intertwined, the benefits of increasing the resilience of vulnerable communities through animal attachment is twofold: human and animal lives can be saved together.