The virtuous circle: predator‐friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia

Johnson, Christopher N.; Wallach, Arian D.

doi:10.1111/rec.12396

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). Predator‐friendly farming, designed to integrate socioeconomic and environmental outcomes (Johnson & Wallach ), is used in North America and Africa and may help overcome aversions to predators in Australia too.…”

Section: People and Rewildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But benefits can accrue to humans from rewilding. These may accrue directly, such as income derived from wildlife tourism and dingoes increasing profitability of farming in some circumstances (Prowse et al 2014;Johnson & Wallach 2016), or indirectly through ecosystem services. For example, restoring forest ecosystems in catchments could reduce flood risk and provide clean water.…”

Section: People and Rewildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Predator conservation efforts are likely to be opposed initially by some, and social impacts of rewilding should be assessed and made clear (Pettorelli et al 2018). Predator-friendly farming, designed to integrate socioeconomic and environmental outcomes (Johnson & Wallach 2016), is used in North America and Africa and may help overcome aversions to predators in Australia too.…”

Section: People and Rewildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Australian perspective on rewilding

Sweeney

Turnbull

Jones

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rewilding is increasingly recognized as a conservation tool but is often context specific, which inhibits broad application. Rewilding in Australia seeks to enhance ecosystem function and promote self‐sustaining ecosystems. An absence of large‐bodied native herbivores means trophic rewilding in mainland Australia has focused on the restoration of functions provided by apex predators and small mammals. Because of the pervasive influence of introduced mesopredators, predator‐proof fences, and establishment of populations on predator‐free islands are common rewilding approaches. This sets Australian rewilding apart from most jurisdictions and provides globally relevant insights but presents challenges to restoring function to broader landscapes. Passive rewilding is of limited utility in arid zones. Although increasing habitat extent and quality in mesic coastal areas may work, it will likely be necessary to undertake active management. Because much of Australia's population is in urban areas, rewilding efforts must include urban areas to maximize effectiveness. Thus rewilding is not synonymous with wilderness and can occur over multiple scales. Rewilding efforts must recognize human effects on other species and benefit both nature and humans. Rewilding in Australia requires development of a shared vision and strategy and proof‐of‐concept projects to demonstrate the benefits. The repackaging of existing conservation activities as rewilding may confuse and undermine the success of rewilding programs and should be avoided. As elsewhere, rewilding in Australia should be viewed as an important conservation tool.

show abstract

Section: People and Rewildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: People and Rewildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: People and Rewildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Australian perspective on rewilding

Sweeney

Turnbull

Jones

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inherently value-laden, religious terms are now frequently used in academic discourses about the ecological roles of large carnivores -terms such as hero, doctrine, dogma, demonising, virtuous, saviour, scapegoat, sanctification, sinners, and saints (e.g. Jones, 2002;Soulé et al, 2005;Anahita and Mix, 2006;Allen et al, 2011a;Letnic et al, 2011;Mech, 2012;Chapron and Lopez-Bao, 2014;Middleton, 2014;Johnson and Wallach, 2016). Unfortunately, but perhaps motivated by the dire status of many carnivore populations, a growing number of studies rely on weak inference when valuing the roles of large carnivores in ecosystems (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Allen

Allen²,

Andrén

et al. 2017

Food Webs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oLarge carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves (Canis lupus) and dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science.

show abstract

“…Indeed, lethal control remains the dominant feature of their management and, in spite of intensive efforts to resolve conflict, livestock depredations have not declined (Smith 2015). A seemingly entrenched and failing management paradigm continues to impede progress to protect dingoes and a restoration of their important ecological role (Johnson and Wallach 2016). Hence, investigating human-dingo conflict is an obvious focus to improve the dingo's conservation status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing dingoes on Fraser Island: culling, conflict, and an alternative

O’Neill¹,

Cairns

Kaplan

et al. 2017

Pac. Conserv. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Globally, the role of large predators is increasingly understood as essential for the restoration and maintenance of ecosystems. Consequently, predator conservation represents a paradigm shift in ecological thinking, yet the management of predators sets conflicting goals because of ongoing conflict with humans. This is exemplified on Fraser Island where dingoes come into conflict with tourists, and dingoes perceived to be dangerous are regularly culled. It is argued here that this new conservation paradigm premised on protecting predators in conjunction with conventional wildlife management can result in predator populations being held in a perpetual state of social disorder, exacerbating rather than alleviating conflict. We consider the intensity and frequency of lethal control and how this may impact upon predator social structures, healthy ecological function, stable breeding patterns and stable territoriality. The direct effects of management-induced psychological stress for the survivors of episodic culls are discussed, as well as the indirect flowon effects of social dysfunction. A final consideration is the cyclical nature of lethal control, whereby conflict with humans results in culling which, in turn, gives rise to further social disruption and conflict. In part, our assessment is derived from official data collected in the course of the management of dingoes on Fraser Island. On this basis, and on the basis of the international literature available, we offer new insights, which may inform predator management more broadly.

show abstract

The virtuous circle: predator‐friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia

Cited by 35 publications

References 31 publications

An Australian perspective on rewilding

An Australian perspective on rewilding

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Managing dingoes on Fraser Island: culling, conflict, and an alternative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About