Butchulla perspectives on dingo displacement and agency at K’gari-Fraser Island, Australia

Carter, Jennifer L.; Wardell‐Johnson, Angela; Archer-Lean, Clare

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.08.001

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are varied examples of how people in different Indigenous communities sometimes distinguish types of dogs, for example, as dingoes and domestic dogs, or "camp dogs" and "wild dogs" (reviewed in [6,33]), yet little has been reported about how these distinctions are made. In the current study, strong agreement about the types of dogs in pictures from camera traps demonstrated the characteristics that residents in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) of Australia consistently classified as belonging to dingoes, including their acceptance of some characteristics associated with hybridisation with domestic dogs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This might reflect the pictures selected for inclusion in the study, or it could reflect a reluctance of residents to use this term. The concept of hybridisation and its application in defining identity can be controversial beyond the sensitivities around managing an animal that has cultural value for these communities [ 33 , 38 ]. Arguments to maintain dingo “purity” mean that dingo–dog hybridisation is used as justification for destruction [ 39 ] (similar to how wolf–dog hybrids are culled in Europe [ 40 ]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Is a Dingo? The Phenotypic Classification of Dingoes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents in Northern Australia

Brookes

Degeling

Eeden

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dingo classification and management is complicated by hybridisation with domestic dogs. Northern Australia is a relatively high-risk zone for a rabies incursion, and in the event of an incursion, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who reside in this region would prioritise the protection of dingoes. Therefore, the classification of dingoes in this context is important. Twelve pictures of canids with features associated with both dingoes and domestic dogs from camera traps in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA), northern Queensland, were shown to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers (n = 3), biosecurity officers (n = 2), environmental health workers (n = 2), and residents (n = 39) in the NPA. Nearly all pictures (10/12) were classified as dingo or domestic dog (none as hybrid) and two were inconclusive (no overall agreement). Dingoes were consistently identified as medium to large-framed dogs, with a long nose, pointed ears, narrow abdomen, a bushy or feathered tail, and smooth coats of a single base colour. Some hybrid features were acceptable, including sable coats, lack of white tail tip or feet, and curled tail. These findings are a preliminary guide for identifying canids in the NPA region for whom management might be controversial. Building on this approach via further consultation with residents is needed to inform rabies response policy. Our approach using locally acquired camera trap pictures could also be extended to other regions in which dingoes have value but their management is controversial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is a Dingo? The Phenotypic Classification of Dingoes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents in Northern Australia

Brookes

Degeling

Eeden

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dingo control practices carried out by settler‐descendent Australians are perceived by some to be representative of conflict between Eurocentric and Indigenous land management objectives and ongoing marginalization of Aboriginal Australians (Carter, Wardell‐Johnson, & Archer‐Lean, 2017; Probyn‐Rapsey, 2015; Rose, 2000). Cahir and Clark (2013) write of early European colonizers killing dingoes and camp dogs to drive Aboriginal peoples off their land, recognizing the strong emotional response elicited by the killing, and this practice continued into the 20th century.…”

Section: Developing a Toc To Promote Coexistence With Dingoesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the power dynamics shaping decisions around environmental issues in Australia are generally Eurocentric (e.g., Nikolakis, Grafton, & Nygaard, 2015), although Aboriginal peoples are consulted and considered important stakeholders for the management of some pest animals (e.g., camels, Vertebrate Pests Committee, 2010; horses, donkeys, foxes, and cats, Central Land Council, 2020). Some Aboriginal Australian peoples have expressed opposition to lethal dingo control and even proposed reintroducing dingoes to areas from which they have been removed (Carter et al, 2017; Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, 2017). The quote at the beginning of this section stems from conflict over dingo management in tourist areas on K'gari Fraser Island.…”

Section: Developing a Toc To Promote Coexistence With Dingoesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Change for promoting coexistence between dingoes and livestock production

Eeden

Dickman

Crowther

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving conservation goals, such as coexistence between wildlife and humans, requires an evidence‐based understanding of the factors that shape conservation contexts. For addressing conflict between humans and wildlife, this means understanding the barriers and opportunities to changing human behaviors toward wildlife. Here, we develop a Theory of Change (ToC) to promote coexistence between livestock producers and dingoes in Australia. The ToC is based on behavior change principles and interdisciplinary research identifying four key stakeholder groups who may influence dingo management. It employs four overlapping strategies to address these barriers: (a) a media campaign to promote public awareness of dingo management practices, which may result in pressure upon governments to restrict lethal control; (b) promoting more inclusive decision‐making processes, specifically including Aboriginal Australians; (c) monitoring and evaluation of the effects of dingo management on livestock and ecosystems to identify opportunities for nonlethal dingo management; (d) campaign to encourage adoption of nonlethal management methods by livestock producers based on an understanding of sociopsychological factors that shape behaviors. The framework is a tool for conservation advocates and policymakers to implement and monitor change that facilitates both wildlife conservation and thriving rural communities.

show abstract

“…Although QPWS have begun to acknowledge the longstanding relationships between the Butchulla people and their dingoes (QPWS 2017), relationships between people and dingoes on K'gari are effectively prohibited (Carter et al 2017). Aboriginal Australians' relationships with dingoes are different from settler Australians' relationships with them.…”

Section: K'gari's Dingoesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative Sovereignty, Emotions and Interspecies Relationships

Lennox

2019

cinder

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article engages the claim that narrative is crucial to humans’ capacity to imagine and to know other animals. It brings together the concept of political sovereignty from Derrida, with an evaluation of emotion to analyse narratives about interspecies relationships. I begin by mapping Derrida’s critique of the relationship between violence and scientific knowledge about animals (Derrida 2009: 276–304) onto recent research into relationships between people and dingoes on K’gari (Fraser Island), to delineate how violent epistemologies may underpin humans’ ways of knowing other animals. I then explore the politics of the public education about dingoes on K’gari as they relate to government policies and the way the state exercises power; such state-sanctioned narratives set the discursive tone for the way people know and interact with (this) other species, and disallow other epistemologies. In contrast, creative nonfiction narrators Barry Lopez (Of Wolves and Men, 2004) and Helen Macdonald (H Is for Hawk, 2014) perform their own critiques of inaccurate and controlling narratives about, respectively, wolves and goshawks. I argue that the techniques they use—acknowledging emotion; observing animals’ perceptions, relationships and agency; respecting animals’ ability to resist human-imposed meanings; recognising the limits of human knowledge; and incorporating other voices—provide a framework for how creative writers may narrateother animals more ethically and more accurately.

show abstract

Butchulla perspectives on dingo displacement and agency at K’gari-Fraser Island, Australia

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

What Is a Dingo? The Phenotypic Classification of Dingoes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents in Northern Australia

What Is a Dingo? The Phenotypic Classification of Dingoes by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents in Northern Australia

A Theory of Change for promoting coexistence between dingoes and livestock production

Narrative Sovereignty, Emotions and Interspecies Relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About