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.

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.

No abstract

Context Vehicle-strike has been identified as a key threatening process for koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) survival and persistence in Australia. Roads and traffic act as barriers to koala movement and can impact dispersal and metapopulation dynamics. Given the high cost of wildlife mitigation structures such as purpose-built fauna-specific underpasses or overpasses (eco-passages), road construction and management agencies are constantly seeking cost-effective strategies that facilitate safe passage for fauna across roads. Here we report on an array of detection methods trialled to verify use of retrofitted road infrastructure (existing water culverts or bridge underpasses) by individual koalas in fragmented urban landscapes in south-east Queensland. Aims The study examined whether the retrofitting of existing road structures at six sites facilitated safe passage for koalas across roads. Our primary objective was to record utilisation of retrofitted infrastructure at the level of the individual. Methods We used a combination of existing monitoring methods such as GPS/VHF collars, camera traps, sand plots, and RFID tags, along with a newly developed animal-borne wireless identification (WID) tag and datalogging system, specifically designed for this project, to realise the study aims. Key results We were able to verify 130 crossings by koalas involving a retrofitted structure or a road surface over a 30-month period by using correlated data from complementary methods. We noted that crossings were generally uncommon and mostly undertaken by only a subset of our tagged individuals at each site (21% overall). Conclusions An important element of this study was that crossing events could be accurately determined at the level of the individual. This allowed for detailed assessment of eco-passage usage, rather than the more usual approach of simply recording species’ presence. Implications This study underscores the value of identifying the constraints of each individual monitoring method in relation to site conditions. It also highlights the benefits of contingency planning to limit data loss (i.e. using more than one method to collect data). We suggest an approach that uses complementary monitoring methods has significant advantages for researchers, particularly with reference to improving understanding of whether eco-passages are meeting their prescribed conservation goals.