Exclusion fencing is a common tool used to mitigate a variety of unwanted economic losses caused by problematic wildlife. While the potential for agricultural, ecological and economic benefits of pest animal exclusion are often apparent, what is less clear are the costs and benefits to sympatric non‐target wildlife. This review examines the use of exclusion fencing in a variety of situations around the world to elucidate the potential outcomes of such fencing for wildlife and apply this knowledge to the recent uptake of exclusion fencing on livestock properties in the Australian rangelands. In Australia, exclusion fences are used to eliminate dingo (Canis familiaris dingo) predation on livestock, prevent crop‐raiding by emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and enable greater control over total grazing pressure through the reduction of macropods (Macropodidae) and feral goats (Capra hircus). A total of 208 journal articles were examined for location, a broad grouping of fence type, and the reported effects the fence was having on the study species. We found 51% of the literature solely discusses intended fencing effects, 42% discusses unintended effects, and only 7% considers both. Africa has the highest proportion of unintended effects literature (52.0%) and Australia has the largest proportion of literature on intended effects (34.2%). We highlight the potential for exclusion fencing to have positive effects on some species and negative effects on others (such as predator exclusion fencing posing a barrier to migration of other species), which remain largely unaddressed in current exclusion fencing systems. From this review we were able to identify where and how mitigation strategies have been successfully used in the past. Harnessing the potential benefits of exclusion fencing while avoiding the otherwise likely costs to both target and non‐target species will require more careful consideration than this issue has previously been afforded.

Removal or loss of top-predators has been predicted to cause cascading negative effects for ecosystems, including mesopredator release. However, reliable evidence for these processes in terrestrial systems has been mixed and equivocal due, in large part, to the systemic and continued use of low-inference study designs to investigate this issue. Even previous large-scale manipulative experiments of strong inferential value have been limited by experimental design features (i.e. failure to prevent migration between treatments) that constrain possible inferences about the presence or absence of mesopredator release effects. Here, we build on these previous strong-inference experiments and report the outcomes of additional large-scale manipulative experiments to eradicate Australian dingoes from two fenced areas where dingo migration was restricted and where theory would predict an increase in extant European red foxes, feral cats and goannas. We demonstrate the removal and suppression of dingoes to undetectable levels over 4–5 years with no corresponding increases in mesopredator relative abundances, which remained low and stable throughout the experiment at both sites. We further demonstrate widespread absence of negative relationships between predators, indicating that the mechanism underpinning predicted mesopredator releases was not present. Our results are consistent with all previous large-scale manipulative experiments and long-term mensurative studies which collectively demonstrate that (1) dingoes do not suppress red foxes, feral cats or goannas at the population level, (2) repeated, temporary suppression of dingoes in open systems does not create mesopredator release effects, and (3) removal and sustained suppression of dingoes to undetectable levels in closed systems does not create mesopredator release effects either. Our experiments add to similar reports from North America, Asia, Europe and southern Africa which indicate that not only is there a widespread absence of reliable evidence for these processes, but there is also a large and continually growing body of experimental evidence of absence for these processes in many terrestrial systems. We conclude that although sympatric predators may interact negatively with each other on smaller spatiotemporal scales, that these negative interactions do not always scale-up to the population level, nor are they always strong enough to create mesopredator suppression or release effects.

The global effort to conserve threatened species relies heavily on our ability to separate these species from the processes that threaten them, and a common tool used for this purpose is exclusion fencing. In Australia, pest animal exclusion fencing has been repeatedly used on conservation land on a small scale to successfully exclude introduced predators and competitors from threatened native fauna populations. However, in recent years, “cluster fencing” on agricultural land has re-emerged on a large scale and is used by livestock producers seeking to reduce predation losses by dingoes (Canis familiaris) and manage total grazing pressure from native and introduced herbivores, including red kangaroos (Osphranter rufus). Given that the primary threats to at-risk native fauna are also predation and overgrazing, there may be potential for cluster fencing on livestock land to achieve additional fauna conservation benefits. Understanding the amount, location and potential conservation value of cluster fenced livestock land is critical for determining how these areas might contribute to broader threatened fauna recovery goals. Drawing from publicly available databases maintained by the Australian Government, we assessed the spatial overlap of threatened species’ distributions with 105 cluster fences erected in Queensland since 2013, which cover 65,901 km2 of land. These cluster fenced areas represent 18 biogeographic subregions and may contain 28 extant threatened mammals, birds and reptiles including 18 vulnerable species, 7 endangered species and 3 critically endangered species. An average of nine threatened species or their habitats were identified per cluster, and over three quarters (78.6%) of these species face at least one threat that is being mitigated within clusters. The true status of threatened and pest species within clusters is largely unknown or unrecorded in most cases, but some examples of pest eradication and threatened species recovery are already emerging. Given the vast size of the cluster fenced estate, the many different biomes and species that it represents and the nature of the threats being removed within these fenced areas, we contend that agricultural cluster fencing may offer an unprecedented opportunity to advance threatened fauna conservation goals for some species at scales previously thought impossible and should be a research priority for threatened species managers.

The available science often demonstrates the need for feral horse population control but not the degree of control required to achieve environmental conservation objectives. To better manage the influence of feral horses, we must first understand the relationship between feral horse density and environmental impact. We recorded vegetation and soil disturbance, and the sign of potential causes of this impact in two parts of the Australian Alps, the Bogong high plains (BHP) and the Eastern Victorian Alps (EVA). We calculated density‐impact functions to assist managers with determining feral horse density targets for control programmes. Minimal sign of feral horse impact was detected on the BHP, with no impact of feral horses observed along 99% of the length of transects. In contrast, impacts assigned to feral horses were significantly higher in the EVA, where a larger, higher‐density population of feral horses existed. However, greater than 83% of the walked transect length was still undisturbed by feral horses in the EVA. We detected a threshold of horse impact at ~ 250 horse faecal piles per ha. Above this threshold, a slight increase in horse density resulted in a disproportionately large increase in impact. In this context, a relatively small population control effort may substantially reduce direct horse impact. But where horse densities exist below this threshold, considerably more expense and control effort (resulting from the difficulties related to control at low density) is likely to make very little difference to an already low level of direct impact. The combined impacts associated with the sign of deer, feral pigs, fire and humans were large compared to that of feral horses. Management of feral horses to reduce their direct impact is unlikely to be beneficial without complementary management to reduce the effects of these other agents of impact.