Large predators can have profound impacts on community composition. Not only do they directly affect prey abundance, they also indirectly affect prey abundance through their direct effects on smaller predators. In Australia, dingoes fill the role of a large predator and, in southern Australia, have clear impacts on introduced foxes. Their effect on introduced cats, however, is less clear. Here we present data from multiple sites across northern Australia (where foxes are absent), which reveal a negative correlation between cat and dingo activity.This relationship could arise because cats avoid areas where dingoes are active, or because cats are less abundant in areas with high dingo densities, or a combination of both. At a subset of our study sites, we experimentally reduced dingo (but not cat) abundance by poison baiting. This resulted in a 55% drop in dingo activity within 4 weeks of baiting, but without a compensatory increase in cat activity. This suggests the negative correlation between cat and dingo activity is not a simple consequence of cats reactively avoiding areas with higher dingo traffic, but rather, that there are fewer cats in areas where dingoes are more active.This study is a rare demonstration of the potential for dingoes to affect the behaviour and potentially the population size of feral cats, and therefore reduce the impact of feral cats on vulnerable native prey species.
Free-roaming domestic cats pose risks to wildlife, domestic animals, humans, and importantly, the cats themselves. Behavior change campaigns that seek to minimize these risks by increasing cat containment require an understanding of the factors that predict cat owners' containment behaviors. We conducted an online survey in Victoria, Australia (N = 1,024) to identify cat owners' (N = 220) behaviors in containing their cats, explore beliefs and attitudes that predict containment behavior, and compare attitudes about cat containment with respondents that do not own cats (N = 804). We found that 53% of cat owning respondents do not allow any roaming. These respondents were more likely to hold concerns about risks to cats' safety while roaming and less likely to perceive that cats have a right to roam. Concern about impacts to wildlife was not a significant predictor of containment behavior. Expectations that cat owners should manage cats' roaming behavior was a social norm among cat owners and other respondents, and cat containers were more likely to indicate that they would try to change behaviors of their peers that they perceived to be harmful to the environment. Cat containment campaigns could be improved by appealing to owners' concerns about cat well-being, engaging respected messengers that align with these concerns, including owners who already contain their cats.
Context. Feral cats (Felis catus) pose a significant threat to Australia’s native species and feral cat control is, therefore, an important component of threatened species management and policy. Australia’s Threatened Species Strategy articulates defined targets for feral cat control. Yet, currently, little is known about who is engaged in feral cat control in Australia, what motivates them, and at what rate they are removing feral cats from the environment. Aims. We aim to document who is engaging in feral cat control in Australia, how many cats they remove and to estimate the number of feral cats killed in a single year. Furthermore, we seek to better understand attitudes towards feral cat control in Australia. Methods. We used a mixed methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. Feral cat control data were obtained from existing data repositories and via surveys targeting relevant organisations and individuals. A bounded national estimate of the number of feral cats killed was produced by combining estimates obtained from data repositories and surveys with modelled predictions for key audience segments. Attitudes towards feral cat control were assessed by exploring qualitative responses to relevant survey questions. Key results. We received information on feral cat control from three central repositories, 134 organisations and 2618 individuals, together removing more than 35000 feral cats per year. When including projections to national populations of key groups, the estimated number of feral cats removed from the environment in the 2017–2018 financial year was 316030 (95% CI: 297742–334318). Conclusions. Individuals and organisations make a significant, and largely unrecorded, contribution to feral cat control. Among individuals, there is a strong awareness of the impact of feral cats on Australia’s biodiversity. Opposition to feral cat control focussed largely on ethical concerns and doubts about its efficacy. Implications. There is significant interest in, and commitment to, feral cat control among some groups of Australian society, beyond the traditional conservation community. Yet more information is needed about control methods and their effectiveness to better understand how these efforts are linked to threatened species outcomes.
Kareiva and Fuller (2016) consider the future prospects for biodiversity conservation in the face of the profound disruptions of the Anthropocene. They argue that more flexible and entrepreneurial approaches to conservation are needed. While some of the approaches they promote may work in particular situations, we believe their proposal risks unintended and detrimental social and ecological consequences by presenting them as global solutions to complex political, economic, social and ethical problems that are context‐dependent. Here we argue that the authors inadequately considers the following core issues of biodiversity conservation, namely: (1) the structural causes of biodiversity depletion and the responsibilities of key actors; (2) the questions around what should be conserved, the processes by which biodiversity is valued, and who has the legitimate authority to value it; (3) the fact that new tools, technologies and innovative approaches are unsuitable as guiding principles to solve complex, context‐dependent social‐ecological problems; (4) the challenges of choosing relevant interventions, given experts’ limited ability to ‘manage for change and evolution’; and (5) the risks associated with promoting a utilitarian approach and a neoliberal governance model for conservation at the global scale.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.