Utilising aversive conditioning to manage the behaviour of K’gari (Fraser Island) dingoes (Canis dingo)

Abstract

Abstract. K'gari (Fraser Island) offers a rare opportunity for people to observe and encounter wild dingoes. Occasionally, however, such encounters can entail dingoes acting in a threatening or aggressive manner towards people, resulting in human injury and, in one tragic case, death. A suite of approaches aimed at minimising the risk to human safety posed by dingoes have been implemented on the island, including fencing, island-wide warning signage, and regulations against feeding. Despite such measures, negative encounters continue, and in cases where dingoes are deemed to pose an unacceptable risk, they are usually destroyed. In searching for non-lethal management alternatives, attempts have been made to modify undesirable dingo behaviour through aversive conditioning, but results to date have either been mixed or largely disappointing. Here we review a wide array of research that has utilised aversive stimuli in an effort to modify and manage the behaviour of wild animals, with a particular focus on related predators such as coyotes and wolves. We identified eight major categories of experimental research: conditioned taste aversion/avoidance (CTA), electric fencing, fladry, chemical repellents, fear-evoking stimuli, physical repellents, aversive collars/devices and hard release procedures. We then outline each of these categories in more detail, complete with pertinent examples of successes and failures as well as advantages and disadvantages. We conclude that some approaches offer promise within three main areas of incident mitigation experimentation: dingo exclusion (e.g. electric fencing), personal protection (mild chemical irritant sprays, sturdy umbrellas) and remedial aversive conditioning (e.g. shock collars). Other approaches, such as CTA and sublethal projectiles are not recommended. Like any approach, aversive conditioning is not a panacea, but it does offer promise in filling gaps in current management and as an alternative to lethal control.

Pets and pests: a review of the contrasting economics and fortunes of dingoes and domestic dogs in Australia, and a proposed new funding scheme for non-lethal dingo management

“…For example, on K'gari, an average of 10.7 (range: 3-22) serious (highest management category, E) incidents are reported annually (Appleby et al 2018), some of which require medical treatment for the people involved (Allen et al 2012). Male dingoes, particularly subadults, feature heavily in these incidents, with unsupervised children being most at risk (Appleby et al 2017(Appleby et al , 2018; however, detailed costs of these attacks are highly variable and not readily estimable. Incidents involving dingoes may also occur elsewhere but attempts to estimate frequency and associated costs were not attempted here.…”

Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices

“…Exclusion of elephants from conflict areas or restricting elephants to protected areas aims to keep elephants away from humans and their interests and is ostensibly intended to avoid the need for the direct killing of elephants in accordance with cultural and societal expectations. Exclusion is often achieved by aversive conditioning where animals learn to associate a particular behaviour with an unpleasant stimuli, and hence cease or modify that behaviour [ 135 , 136 , 137 ]. A multitude of aversive stimuli are used against elephants which they learn to avoid by associating it with a warning stimulus ( Table 2 ).…”

The Rules of Attraction: The Necessary Role of Animal Cognition in Explaining Conservation Failures and Successes

“…Many challenges that the field of conservation behavior tackles can be defined as approach/avoid management, in which researchers and managers aim to either attract or repel animals from specific locations or stimuli (Figure 1). For example, researchers and managers may use their knowledge of animal behavior to understand why some animals are attracted to anthropogenic resources and to find efficient ways to reverse this attraction and encourage avoidance in order to reduce human-wildlife conflict (Appleby et al 2017). Behavioral manipulations of approach and avoidance have been deployed in contexts that include attracting translocated animals to use high-quality habitats and avoid predators and ecological traps (Shier 2016), improving the usage of conservation corridors (St. Clair et al 1998), training animals to avoid harmful invasive predators or prey (Griffin et al 2000, O'Donnell et al 2010, and reducing the risk of animal-vehicle collisions by encouraging animals to avoid approaching vehicles (Blackwell et al 2016).…”