sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dingo, Dingo Fence

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center Sheep & Goat Research Journal for

October 2004

Review of Canid Management in for the Protection of and Wildlife — Potential Application to Coyote Management

L. R. Allen Robert Wicks Pest Research Centre, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, , Australia

P. J. S. Fleming Orange Agricultural Institute, , Australia,

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmsheepgoat

Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons

Allen, L. R. and Fleming, P. J. S., "Review of Canid Management in Australia for the Protection of Livestock and Wildlife — Potential Application to Coyote Management" (2004). Sheep & Goat Research Journal. 2. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmsheepgoat/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sheep & Goat Research Journal by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Review of Canid Management in Australia for the Protection of Livestock and Wildlife — Potential Application to Coyote Management

L.R. Allen1 and P.J.S. Fleming2

1 Robert Wicks Pest Animal Research Centre, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, P.O. Box 318, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia 4350 2 Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Agriculture, Orange Agricultural Institute, Forest Road, Orange, New South Wales, Australia, 2800

Keywords: Canid, Coyote, , ally every habitat across the Australian handle sheep and goats. Management, , Sheep, Toxi- continent and are absent from The movement of prey is an essen- cant (Fleming et al., 2001). However, because tial stimulus for eliciting predation by of their longer association with Aus- canids (Fox, 1969). Big horn and Dall Introduction tralia, they are often regarded as a sheep (Ovis canadiensis and O. dalli) of “native” species (Davis, 2001). Wild North America scatter in the presence of Australia has two introduced canid domestic dogs have been present since ( lupus lupus), their fleeing species — European red foxes (Vulpes the first European settlement in 1788 behavior eliciting an attack response by vulpes) and wild dogs (which include (Fleming et al., 2001) and hybridization wolves (Mech, 1988). Domestic goats dingoes, , domestic with dingoes has been occurring ever and sheep have been selected from wild dogs C. l. familiaris and their hybrids). since (Corbett, 1995a, 2001). Despite species and also flee in the presence of Foxes were introduced into mainland the native status of dingoes, all wild dogs wild dogs. However, unlike their wild Australia in the 1860s and quickly and foxes are regarded and managed as caprinid relatives that can take refuge spread (Rolls, 1984; Jarman 1986). This pests on agricultural lands, i.e. outside of from predators amongst the rocky, rough dispersal and establishment is believed conservation areas. Pure dingoes alone terrain found in their natural habitat (for linked with the introduction and spread are afforded legislative protection in example Dall sheep, Frid, 1997), domes- of European wild rabbits (Oryctolagus areas set aside for conservation (Fleming tic sheep and goats have no defensive cunniculus) (Saunders et al., 1995). et al., 2001; Davis and Leys, 2001) yet behaviors of consequence. The instinc- Except in Tasmania, where previous feral dogs and hybrids effectively enjoy tive reaction to flee is disastrous for introductions appear to have been the same legislative protection in con- domestic livestock because they seldom unsuccessful, and in , servation areas as dingoes, because they have quality refuge available and their where the climate is unsuitable and rab- cannot be managed separately. fleeing behavior triggers wild bits are essentially absent, foxes have attacks. In addition, Australian merinos, become established throughout in virtu- Impact of Canids on which comprise approximately 75% of ally all habitats including urban and res- the national flock of 104 million sheep idential environments (Saunders et al., Livestock Production: (Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, 1995). Within decades of their introduc- Wild Dogs 2000), are particularly susceptible tion, legislation was enacted proclaiming because their second anti-predator them as pests to agriculture, and more Wild dogs cost the grazing indus- tries of Australia millions of dollars response is to circle and form a mob. As recently, as a key threatening process to they circle, more of those on the outside endangered small (NSW annually in production losses and con- trol expenses (Fleming et al., 2001; of the moving mob are exposed to the National Parks & Wildlife Service, predator (Fleming, 2001) and surplus 2001). This status has been enshrined in Whan, 2003). Production losses are highest in the sheep industry, followed killing, where one dog is responsible for subsequent legislation and strengthened predation in excess of nutritional by virtue of foxes being an introduced by the cattle and the goat industries (Fleming and Korn, 1989), reflecting requirements (for example Andelt et al., pest species rather than a native animal. 1980), often occurs. Because of surplus Dingoes are thought to have arrived the relative numbers of the three live- stock species nationally (Meat & Live- killing, the damage experienced by in Australia from Southeast Asia about sheep producers is not related to the 5000 years before present (Corbett, stock Australia Limited, 2000). Sheep and goats are more vulnerable to wild density of wild dogs, excepting that no 1995a). A number of reports have damage occurs in the absence of wild reviewed the origins, ecological signifi- dog predation than cattle. This is pri- marily due to two factors: (a) the flee- dogs (Fleming, 2001). cance of , and their morphological Thomson (1992) observed that wild and genetic relationship to domestic ing and mobbing behavior of sheep and goats in response to the presence of wild dogs easily out-paced sheep subsequently dogs. Interested readers are referred to attacking 66% of the sheep they chased. Newsome et al. (1980) as one example. dogs; and (b) the style of wild dogs and the efficiency at which wild This level of capture efficiency is excep- Like foxes they are also found in virtu- tionally high relative to other prey and

Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 97 at the higher end for other predators (Table 1). In fact, many of the sheep in Table 1. Capture Efficiency of Canids Attacking Prey. Thomson’s (1992) study were chased and outrun by wild dogs but not Capture attacked, the pursuing wild dog breaking Canid Prey Efficiency Reference off to pursue another sheep. Thomson Wild Dogs Sheep 66% Thomson 1992 concluded that there was no advantage Canis lupus dingo, for wild dogs to cooperatively hunt C.l. familiaris Cattle (Bos spp) 14% Thomson 1992 sheep. (Macropus spp) 9% Thomson 1992 Characteristics of wild dog preda- tion include: Wolves Elk (Cervus elephus) 15-26% Mech et al. 2001 • Relatively few of the sheep and Canis lupus lupus White-tailed deer goats killed or mauled by wild dogs are (Odocoileus virginianus) 25-63% Kolonosky 1972 eaten; • Of those sheep and goats that are African hunting dogs Ungulates (mostly eaten, generally little is consumed; and Gazella thompsonii) 85% Estes and Goddard 1967 • All wild dogs that enter sheep or goat grazing lands will eventually attack 2 or harass sheep and goats. Table 2. Predation loss of calves in baited and non-baited portions (>400 km ) This scenario has resulted in respec- of the same property (from Allen, In Preparation). tive State and Governments independently developing management Predation Loss Predation Loss policies that regard sheep or goat pro- Site/Date Baited Area Non-Baited Area duction as being incompatible with the Mt Owen/ 1994 Nil Detected 8.8% presence of wild dogs. In contrast, atti- Mt Owen / 1995 15% Nil Detected tudes of beef cattle producers towards Mt Owen 1996 Nil Detected Nil Detected wild dog predation are diverse (Allen Mt Owen / 1997 Nil Detected Nil Detected and Sparkes, 2000). Part of the reason Strathmore/ 1995 11.3% Nil Detected for this diversity is the defensive behav- Strathmore/ 1996 32.1% Nil Detected ior of cattle in response to the presence Strathmore / 1997 Nil Detected Nil Detected of wild dogs — adult cattle cooperatively defend calves and/or charge wild dogs low, when below-average, annual rainfall wild dogs on individual cattle properties (Thomson, 1992; Corbett, 1995a). This had preceded, and most importantly, may not only be ineffective but counter- defensive behavior of cattle discourages when baited areas had been re-colonized productive. For example, for twenty wild dogs resulting in fewer attacks. by wild dogs (Allen, In Preparation). years 1968 to 1987 baiting programs Consequently, even though wild dogs are The study concluded that young, dis- were conducted on Ironhurst station more efficient at chasing and killing persing wild dogs were likely to re-colo- throughout the year yet they continued calves than preferred natural prey such nize after baiting, and were more predis- to see bitten calves (Fig. 1). When wild as kangaroos (Table 1), they infrequently posed to attacking calves than stable dog management changed in 1988 to an do so. wild dog populations. Thus, attempts to annual, large-scale, coordinated-baiting Studies comparing calf loss, subse- reduce predation losses by controlling program involving multiple properties quent to confirmed pregnancy diagnosis, Figure 1. Changes to the branding rate and number of calves bitten on Ironhurst in beef cattle herds depastured in 1080 Station subsequent to major changes to dingo control technique. (From Allen and baited and non-baited paddocks (>400 Gonzalez, 1998). km2) in far north and southwest Queens- land showed that in most years wild dogs do not cause detectable predation losses (Table 2). Curiously, this study also found that when wild dog populations were baited on part of the property, annual predation losses increased both in frequency (number of years predation loss is detected) and magnitude (per- centage of calves killed by wild dogs). As one naturally assumes reducing pest numbers consequently reduces the impact of that pest, these results were quite unexpected. The study showed calf losses occurred when prey populations were

98 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 mean-annual-branding rate increased by 18% simultaneous with a substantial Table 3. Calf production and dingo control figures from Ironhurst Station in decrease in bitten calves (Table 3). Sim- North Queensland from 1978 to 1996. (From Allen and Gonzalez, 1998). ilarly, in the Brindabella Ranges immedi- ately west of Canberra in the Australian Control Method Ground Baiting Aerial Baiting Capital Territory, a cooperative ground Single property Several Properties baiting and trapping program that Poison strychnine 1080 2 included about 850 km2 of lands man- Area Baited 520 km_ >50 000 km aged by government agencies and pri- Mean Branding (1978-87) (1988-96) vate owners achieved a 60% reduction Rate (SE) 57.3% (2.5) 75.3% (0.4) on average annual losses of sheep and Mean Calves Branded (SE) 590.8 (39.4) 998.5 (44) goats (Hunt and the Brindabella/ Wee % Calves Bitten 13.3 0.4 Jasper Wild dog/ Fox Working Group, Annual Rainfall (SE) 697 mm (102) 608 mm (84) 2002). These are just three examples that demonstrate a strategic advantage caninum infection in Queensland beef mann and Taylor, 2003). from large-scale, coordinated wild dog cattle is about 15% and corresponds with control that cannot be achieved through the distribution of wild dogs (Landmann Impact of Canids on control programs having a single prop- and Taylor, 2003). The cost to the Aus- Livestock Production: Foxes erty focus. tralian dairy and beef industries of abor- A recent independent economic tions caused by N. caninum infection has In contrast to wild dogs, foxes are of assessment valued the impact of wild been estimated at A$110 million annu- little consequence to cattle production dogs in Queensland as A$33 million. ally (Reichel 2000). However, the role of in Australia except as a source of hydatid (Table 4, Whan, 2003). For sheep, most wild dogs in N. caninum infection has infection (Jenkins et al., 2000) and per- of the direct losses were from mauled and not been investigated but is likely to be haps as a source, along with wild dogs, of destroyed livestock, whereas in beef cat- important, particularly in north Queens- N. caninum infection. Foxes are known tle, wild dogs cost A$19 million through land where prevalence is highest (Land- predators of lambs but their impact has their roles as vectors for diseases such as hydatidosis (causative agent Echinococ- Table 4. Summary of direct costs inflicted on the Queensland’s rural economy cus granulosus) as well as predation. A by wild dogs (Whan, 2003). number of economic assessments of sheep predation by wild dogs in other Participant Details of Cost Amount (A$) States have been undertaken and these Graziers are reviewed in Fleming et al. (2001). It Predation losses - sheep Direct loss 8,771,000 is difficult to obtain data for the costs Predation losses - cattle Direct loss of calves 9,531,000 and benefits of controlling wild dogs in Disease losses - cattle Hydatidosis and Neospora 9,400,000 sheep growing areas because few produc- Prevention costs Baiting (meat, labour, fuel, etc) 616,000 ers are willing to withdraw wild dog con- Other control costs Trapping, shooting, fencing, trol so that damage can be assessed surveillance 357,000 (Fleming et al., 2001). Nevertheless, in Sub-total 28,675,000 four surveys undertaken in New South Local Government (based on 28 shires) Wales between 1961 and 1985, losses of Barrier Fence in 2001-02 $ for $ matching of State sheep in wild dog affected areas ranged contribution to Barrier 700,000 from 0.7 to 1.33% in the presence of Check fence (3 shires only) Tara, Waggamba and Inglewood control (Fleming et al., 2001). Fleming shires 200,000 and Korn (1989) found that 6,400 live- Bounties and trapping etc Bounties range from $10 to stock were killed or injured $100/ scalp 50,000 annually by wild dogs. These data were Baiting (excluded elsewhere) Meat, mixing, distribution 1,500,000 reported to eastern New South Wales Sub-total 2,450,000 control authorities by landholders State & Commonwealth between 1982 and 1985 and probably Barrier Fence Staff, materials and vehicles, etc 700,000 represented 31% of the actual losses 1080 30 kg @ $400/kg + freight 13,000 (Fleming and Korn, 1989). A survey of Coordination & bait making 27 NR&M officers directly involved 405,000 809 landholders in the State of NR&M Head Office + in 1985 indicated that the cost of losses Res & Development Planning coordination and control activities was about A$2.9 and extension $265,000 million (Backholer, 1986), which is R&D $400,000 665,000 equivalent to A$5 million in 2003. Other govt departments QPWS and EPA (estimate only) 200,000 is a protozoan Sub-total 1,983,000 that causes abortion in infected beef and State total 33,108,000 dairy cattle herds. The prevalence of N.

Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 99 been little studied. While some studies ducted on threatened, vulnerable and and the major sheep producing regions suggest foxes may take 10 to 30% of endangered wildlife species in the last were enclosed in a State Government- lambs in some areas with concurrent decade have discovered fox predation is maintained, Dingo Barrier Fence that negative economic consequences (Lug- a major cause of mortality threatening stretched thousands of kilometers ton, 1993; 1994), fox predation on lambs biodiversity and species survival (exten- through Queensland, along the New is often negligible (Greentree et al., sively reviewed in Saunders et. al., South Wales border and across South 2000) and is regarded as generally 1995). In , large scale, Australia (Fig. 2). The aim of the Dingo insignificant at a national level (Saun- fox control exercises (e.g. Thomson and Barrier Fence is primarily to prevent the ders et. al., 1995). Where fox predation Algar, 2000) have been instrumental in ingress of wild dogs into sheep-produc- is substantial, loss of lambs not only the recovery of some threatened mam- tion areas from areas where no or less affects the potential income derived mal species, including numbats wild-dog control occurs. Its effectiveness from wool and sale sheep but also slows (Mymecobius fasciatus), woylies (Betton- is reviewed in Allen and Sparkes (2001). the rate of genetic improvement by gia penicillata), Rothschild’s rock walla- So intensive was the effort put into reducing the rate of culling for selection. bies (Petrogale rothschildi) and black- wild-dog control and so effective were footed rock wallabies (P. lateralis) (Bailey these methods, that wild dogs were com- Impact of Wild Dogs 1996; Kinnear et al., 1998; Saunders et pletely removed from core-sheep-pro- al., 1995). Fox predation has even been duction areas of eastern and southern on Wildlife shown to limit recruitment of eastern Australia. Nevertheless, the introduc- • The current role of wild dogs in grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus), the tion of 1080 brought significant change. the many Australian in largest and most abundant of the Allen and Sparkes (2001) report that which they occur has not been estab- macropods in eastern Australia (Banks within five years from commencing the lished. Wild dogs probably have a posi- et al., 2000). use of 1080 baiting in Queensland tive impact on wildlife by: (1968), the use of strychnine baits was • Suppressing the density of fox Canid Management suspended because of insufficient populations by limiting the access of in Australia demand, and over the decade following foxes to (native) prey resources where 1080 introduction the number of local the two species coexist (Jarman, 1986; Prior to the introduction of the tox- government-employed wild-dog trappers Corbett, 1995a); and icant fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) in declined from 57 to four. Similar reduc- • Preying on feral livestock like the mid-1960s strychnine was exten- tions were evident in the number of goats (Allen et al. 1996, Parkes et al. sively used for about a hundred years by trappers employed in northeastern New 1996), pigs and potentially deer (Corbett graziers to control canids (Rolls, 1984; South Wales (Fleming, 1996a). 1995a), pest species, such as rabbits, feral Allen and Sparkes, 2001). Trapping and For four decades, baits poisoned cats, and hares, and over abundant native fencing were also important methods of with 1080 have been extensively used in animals, such as macropods and wild-dog control. Boundary fences of Australia. They are placed in bait sta- (Caughley et al., 1980; Shepherd 1981; most sheep-producing properties were tions or along fence lines and property Robertshaw and Harden, 1987; Newsome constructed of wild-dog-proof netting roads from vehicles, or alternatively, et al., 1989; and Corbett 1995a). Whether wild dogs actually regulate Figure 2. The Dingo Barrier Fence, a two-meter-high netting fence, stretches populations of their prey is subject to thousands of kilometers from Queensland to and encloses most debate (Corbett, 1995b; Pople et al., of Australia’s sheep production areas. 2000). However, the dingo has been implicated as one of the causes of the demise of some endemic of arid and semi-arid environments prior to cat and fox range expansion into those areas (Corbett, 1995a). Also, the dingo possibly caused the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus) (Archer, 1974), the (Sarcophilus harrisii) (Corbett, 1995a) and the Tas- manian woodhen, Gallinula mortierii (Baird, 1991) to become extinct on the Australian mainland. The effects of the potential changes in behavior and ecol- ogy of wild dogs, caused by increased hybridization, on wildlife is unknown. Impact of Foxes on Wildlife In contrast to wild dogs, studies con-

100 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 dropped from aircraft along inaccessible paign using ground-distributed 1080 Allen, in preparation). No immediate or creeks and ridges — places frequently baits (Croft et al., 2002). Baiting with chronic impacts of baiting were seen traveled by wild dogs (Fleming et al., 1080-impregnated baits is the corner- (Fig. 3). Their populations increased and 1996). This practice has been singly the stone of fox control for native wildlife decreased responding to seasonal condi- most important canid-control method protection throughout Australia, and tions but showed identical patterns with used in Australia and vast tracts of graz- without 1080 most of the recovery and and without baiting. ing land have been annually baited. The reintroduction programs for threatened Occasionally, strychnine and management of wild dogs relies heavily species would be impossible to conduct. cyanide are used under permit for special on 1080 baiting because it delivers a If 1080 baiting was not available, the applications, including the poisoning of rapid, cost-efficient, and humane reduc- consequences for Tasmanian wildlife in trap jaws to prevent the slow death of tion in wild-dog populations over areas the event of further introductions of trapped canids through dehydration or of sufficient size to prevent re-coloniza- foxes would be dire. There are no alter- hyperthermia and for research where tion from uncontrolled populations native techniques to 1080 baiting that canid carcasses are required. As these (Thomson, 1986; Fleming et al., 1996; can be applied at equivalent scale and toxins do not have all of the advantages Fleming et al., 2001). As much of the cost, that will reduce fox populations of 1080, their use is uncommon and wild dog control is conducted in remote sufficiently to minimize predation on restricted. areas where wildlife is more abundant wildlife populations. than in mixed farming and cultivated Application to Canid areas, the reductions in fox abundance Choice of Toxicant that concurrently occur (Fleming, Management in 1996b) are seen as an added benefit. Because native mammals are more North America Trapping for removal is still an tolerant of 1080 than introduced mam- Significant similarities and differ- essential tool for wild-dog control in the mals (McIlroy, 1986; McIlroy et al., ences exist between the canids involved tablelands of southeastern New South 1986) and Australia has few medium- in livestock predation, their status, hunt- Wales and in northern Victoria. Trap- sized carnivorous animals that are not ing behavior, impact and management ping and ground baiting are necessary introduced pests 1080 is the toxin of in North America and Australia. Simi- because the area available to conduct choice in Australia. Fluoroacetate occurs larities include: aerial baiting has been reduced over the naturally in many plants, particularly in • Similar sized canids (wild dogs past 10 years. The perception that spot- Western Australia and northern Aus- are several kilograms heavier than coy- ted-tailed (Dasyurus maculatus) tralia, and most animals evolved in these otes on average) or are similar or identi- might be at risk from canid control areas have consequently developed tol- cal species (foxes); (Belcher, 1998) has resulted in a reduc- erance to it (McIlroy, 1986). The high • Sheep and goat production are tion in the area baited by aircraft. How- tolerance of most native animals and the the most vulnerable industries to eco- ever, Körtner et al. (2003) have shown high sensitivity of canids mean that very nomic loss from canid predation and that spotted-tailed quolls are not small doses are used (3 to 10 mg total per harassment; affected by ground baiting programs for individual) to cause the death of wild • Dispersal and rapid re-coloniza- fox control, starvation, disease and pre- canids and hence the hazard to non-tar- tion of controlled populations quickly dation by foxes and wild dogs being more gets is limited further. Many Australian negates the impacts of canid control on likely causes of their mortality. Whether plants and soil microbes break down and individual properties; and baiting for wild dogs endangers spotted- utilize 1080 (Twigg and Socha, 2001). • Canid control methods are gen- tailed populations has not been Laboratory trials have demonstrated that erally identical with the exception of determined and is the subject of ongoing some dasyurid species (for example, the poison baiting in Australia, research in New South Wales and mouse-sized fat-tailed dunnart, Differences in canids and manage- Queensland. Sminthopsis crassicaudata, Sinclair and ment between North America and Aus- The control of foxes in conservation Bird, 1984) are able to detect and avoid tralia include: areas to protect wildlife resources, in 1080. Populations of western quolls • The hunting style of wild dogs most cases, uses identical methods to (Dasyurus geoffroii), which are tolerant coupled with the fleeing and mobbing those of agricultural areas. Where neces- to 1080, have been shown to benefit behavior of sheep results in sheep and sary, large-scale, aerial baiting with 1080 from fox control with 1080 baits, goat losses in a higher order of magni- baits is practiced, targeted in those inac- assumedly because competition and tude compared to coyotes; cessible areas where vulnerable native direct predation by foxes and wild dogs • Foxes, wild domestic dogs and species require particular protection are removed (Bailey, 1996). dingo-domestic dog hybrids are intro- from foxes (Bailey, 1996). Recently, Populations of reptiles (principally duced species and regarded as pests to foxes were deliberately and maliciously Varanus spp), birds and rodent- agriculture and conservation in Aus- released into Tasmania, which is the sized mammals (principally dunnarts, tralia. Their “introduced pest” status largest island refuge for some species, Sminthopsis spp.), carnivorous species ensures greater public support for control including Tasmanian devils, the Tas- potentially “at risk” from 1080 baiting, programs. In contrast, coyotes and red manian woodhen and eastern quolls were studied in non-baited areas, and foxes are native carnivores in North (Dasyurus viverrinus). This led to a wide- adjoining populations located in 1080- 2 America, although their ranges have spread and expensive eradication cam- baited areas of similar size (400km ,

Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 101 Figure 3. Population trends (including 95% CL) of reptiles (principally goannas, expanded since European settlement; Varanus spp), ground foraging birds and small mammals (principally carnivorous • There are no wolves or other dunnarts, Sminthopsis spp) in adjoining baited (broken line) and non-baited areas large carnivores in Australia; wild dogs (solid line) illustrating that potentially “at-risk” wildlife are not affected by canid are the largest. The largest extant marsu- baiting programs. The 400 km2 baited area was at least annually ground and aeri- pial carnivore is the Tasmanian devil, ally baited with 800 to 2000 10mg 1080 single-dose meat baits 1994 to 1998. which is mostly a scavenger and no Drought conditions prevailed before 1995 and this was followed by three consec- longer occurs on mainland Australia; utive years of above-average rainfall. • All Australian canids are pro- claimed by legislation as pests to agricul- ture. Consequently, resource managers are legally obliged to control the abun- dance and spread of canids; • Australia’s native wildlife is rel- atively tolerant of 1080, while the target canids are extremely sensitive to 1080. This allows baiting practices to more specifically target pest species in Aus- tralia. North America has a relative large number of native carnivores poten- tially at risk from toxicants; • Unlike the North American sheep and goat industry, the grazing industry in Australia is a significant con- tributor to the nation’s economy and consequently commands more favorable treatment from resource management agencies; • In Australia, management of wild canids is population-based with control of individuals occurring oppor- tunistically or in response to predation of livestock that is unresolved by large- scale control; and • There is a trend in Australia toward cooperative, strategic wild canid management programs that are: large- scale; aimed at preventing impacts rather than reacting to impacts; and jointly funded by all affected stakeholders. Considering the similarities and differences in canid management between North America and Australia, two key factors seriously compromise the efficiency and economics of sheep and goat production in North America. These are: 1. An absence of an equivalent canid toxicant that has the utility and specificity that 1080 provides in Aus- tralia; and 2. The political and legislative support that regulates and protects graz- ing industries from canid predation in Australia. Without these key factors Australia could not sustain viable sheep and goat industries, nor could resource managers prevent or mitigate the impacts of canids on threatened or endangered wildlife populations.

102 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 Literature Cited Wildlife Research 7:1-12. Fleming, P. J. S. 2001. Legislative issues Corbett, L. K., 1995a. The dingo in Aus- relating to control of dingoes and Allen, L. R., Lee, J. and Edwards, J. tralia and Asia. Australian Natural other wild dogs in New South 1996. Managing Feral Goats and History Series, University of New Wales. II Historical and technical their Impact on Townshend Island South Wales Press, . justification for current policy. pp. in Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Corbett, L. K. 1995b. Does dingo preda- 42-48. In: A Symposium on the in Environmentally Responsible tion or buffalo competition regulate Dingo, edited by C. R. Dickman and Defense, edited by P. Crabb, J. Kesby populations in the Aus- D. Lunney, Royal Zoological Soci- and L. Olive, Australian Defense tralian wet–dry tropics? An experi- ety of New South Wales, Mosman. Studies Centre, pp. 79-86. mental study. Wildlife Research Fleming, P. J. S. , Corbett, L. K., Harden, Allen, L. R. and Gonzalez, A. 1998. 22:65-74. R. and Thomson, P. 2001. Managing Baiting reduces dingo numbers, Corbett, L..K. 2001. The conservation the impacts of dingoes and other changes age structures yet often status of the dingo Canis lupus wild dogs. Bureau of Rural Sciences, increases calf losses. Australian Ver- dingo in Australia, with particular Canberra. tebrate Pest Control Conference reference to New South Wales: Fleming, P. J. S. and Korn, T. J. 1989. 11:421-428. threats to pure dingoes and poten- Predation of livestock by wild dogs Allen, L. R. and Sparkes, E. C. 2001 The tial solutions. Pp. 10-19. In: A Sym- in eastern New South Wales. Aus- effect of dingo control on sheep and posium on the Dingo, edited by C. tralian Rangelands Journal 11:61- beef cattle in Queensland. Journal R. Dickman and D. Lunney, Royal 66. of Applied Ecology 38:76-87. Zoological Society of New South Fleming, P. J. S., Thompson, J. A. and Andelt, W. F., Althoff, D. P., Case, R. M. Wales, Mosman. Nicol, H. I. 1996. Indices for meas- and Gipson, P. S. 1980. Surplus- Croft, D., Balogh, S. and Gentle, M. uring the efficacy of aerial baiting killing by coyotes. Journal of Mam- 2002. Extending the ‘Out Fox’ for wild dog control in north-east- malogy 61:377-378. landowner involvement program. ern New South Wales. Wildlife Archer, M. 1974. New information pp. 27-29. In: Proceedings of the Research 23:665-674. about the quaternary distribution of Second NSW Pest Animal Control Fox, M. W. 1969. Ontogeny of prey- the (Marsupialia, Thy- Conference, edited by S. Balogh, killing behavior in . Behav- lacinidae) in Australia. Proceedings NSW Agriculture, Orange. iour 35:18-272. of the Royal Society of Western Davis, E. 2001. Legislative issues relating Frid, A. 1997. Vigilance by female Dall’s Australia 57:43-50. to control of dingoes and other wild sheep: interactions between preda- Backholer, J .R. 1986. A survey of land- dogs in New South Wales. I tion risk factors. Animal Behaviour holders on the wild dog problem in Approaches to future management. 53:799-808. eastern Pp. 39-41. In: A Symposium on the Greentree, C., Saunders, G., McLeod, L. Victoria: a preliminary analysis. Unpub- Dingo, edited by C.R. Dickman and and Hone J. 2000. Lamb predation lished report to Land Protection D. Lunney, Royal Zoological Soci- and fox control in south-eastern Service, Department of Conserva- ety of New South Wales, Mosman. Australia. Journal of Applied Ecol- tion, Forests and Lands, Victoria. Davis, E. O. and Leys, A. R. 2001. Rec- ogy 37:935-943. Bailey, C. 1996. Western Shield: bring- onciling wild dog control and dingo Hunt, R. and the Brindabella/ Wee ing wildlife back from the brink. conservation under New South Jasper Wild dog/ Fox Working Landscope 11:41-48. Wales legislation. Pp. 108-110. In: Group 2002. Brindabella and Wee Baird, R. F. 1991. The dingo as a possible A Symposium on the Dingo, Edited Jasper Valleys Cooperative Wild factor in the disappearance of by C. R. Dickman and D. Lunney, dog/fox control plan, July 2002-June Gallinula mortierii from the Aus- Royal Zoological Society of New 2005. http://www.nationalparks.nsw. tralian mainland. 91:121-122. South Wales, Mosman. gov.au/PDFs/brindabella_plan.PDF. Banks, P. B., Newsome, A. E. and Dick- Estes, R. D. and Goddard, J. 1967. Prey 13th May 2003. man, C. R. 2000. Predation by red selection and hunting behavior of Jarman, P. J. 1986. The - an foxes limits recruitment in popula- the . Journal of exotic, large predator, in The Ecol- tions of eastern grey kangaroos. Wildlife Management 31:52-70. ogy of Exotic Animals and Plants Austral Ecology 25:283-291. Fleming, P. J. S. 1996a. Aspects of the some Australian Case Histories, Belcher, C. A. 1998. Susceptibility of management of wild dogs (Canis edited by R.L. Kitching. Wiley, Bris- the , Dasyurus maculatus, familiaris) in north-eastern New bane. pp 43-61. and the eastern quoll, D. viverrinus, South Wales. Unpublished Master Jenkins, D. J., Fraser, A., Bradshaw, H. to 1080-poisoned baits in control of Resource Science thesis, Univer- and Craig, P. S. 2000. Detection of programmes for vertebrate pests in sity of New England, Armidale. Echinococcus granulosus coproanti- eastern Australia. Wildlife Research Fleming, P. J. S. 1996b. Ground-placed gens in Australian canids with natu- 25:33-40. baits for the control of wild dogs: ral or experimental infection. Jour- Caughley, G., Grigg, G. C., Caughley, J. evaluation of a replacement-baiting nal of Parasitology 86:140–145. and Hill, G. J. E. 1980. Does dingo strategy in north-eastern New Kinnear, J. E., Onus, M. L. and Sumner, predation control the densities of South Wales. Wildlife Research N. R. 1998. Fox control and rock- kangaroos and emus? Australian 23:729-740. wallaby population dynamics — II.

Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004 103 An update. Wildlife Research Newsome, A. E., Parer, I. and Catling, P. behaviour, and diet, Wildlife 25:81-88. C. 1989. Prolonged prey suppression Research 19:531-41. Kolonosky, G. B. 1972. predation by carnivores — predator-removal Thomson, P. C. and Algar, D. 2000. on wintering deer in east-central experiments, Oecologia 78:458-467. The uptake of dried meat baits by Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Man- NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service foxes and investigations of baiting agement 36:357-369. 2001. Threat Abatement Plan for rates in Western Australia. Wildlife Körtner, G., Gresser, S. and Harden, B. Predation by the Red fox (Vulpes Research 17:451-456. 2003. Does fox baiting threaten the vulpes). NSW National Parks and Twigg, L. E. and Socha, L. V. 2001. spotted-tailed quoll, Dasyurus mac- Wildlife Service, Hurstville. Defluorination of sodium monofluo- ulatus? Wildlife Research 30:111- Parkes, J., Henzell, R. and Pickles, G. roacetate by soil microorganisms 118. 1996. Managing Vertebrate Pests: from . Soil Biology Landmann, J. and Taylor, L. 2003. Inves- Feral Goats. Australian Govern- and Biochemistry 33:227-234. tigation of the prevalence of ment Publishing Service, Canberra. Whan, I. 2003. Economic Assessment of Neospora caninum in Queensland Pople, A. R., Grigg, G. C., Cairns, S. C., the Impact of Dingoes/Wild Dogs in beef cattle. Final report to Meat & Beard, L. A. and Alexander, P. 2000. Queensland. Draft report to the Livestock Australia Limited. Pp 41. Trends in the numbers of red kanga- Department of Natural Resources Lugton, I. W. 1993. Fox predation on roos and emus on either side of the and Mines by Rural Management lambs. Pp 17-26 In: Caring technol- South Australian : evi- Partners, Milton, Brisbane. ogy: Proceedings of the Australian dence for predator regulation? Sheep Veterinary Society, Aus- Wildlife Research 27:269-276. tralian Veterinary Association Con- Reichel, M. P. 2000. Neospora caninum ference. Edited by D. A. Hacker. infections in Australia and New Pitman_Moore Australia Ltd, Zealand. Australian Veterinary North Ryde. Journal 78:258-261. Lugton, I. 1994. Foxes underestimated as Robertshaw, J. D. and Harden, R. H. lamb killers. Farming Ahead 31:50- 1987. Predation on Macropododae: 53. a review. pp 735-753. In: Kanga- McIlroy, J. C. 1986. The sensitivity of roos, Wallabies and Rat kangaroos, Australian animals to 1080 poison. edited by Grigg, G., Jarman, P. and IX. Comparisons between the major Hume, I.. Surrey Beatty and Sons, groups of animals and the potential Sydney. danger non-targets face from 1080- Rolls, E. C. 1984. They all ran wild: the poisoning campaigns. Australian animals and plants that plague Wildlife Research 13:39-48. Australia. Angus and Robertson, McIlroy, J. C., Gifford, E. J. and Cooper, Sydney. R. J. 1986. Effects on non-target Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J. populations of wild dog trail baiting and Braysher, M. 1995. Managing campaigns with 1080 poison. Aus- Vertebrate Pests: Foxes. Australian tralian Wildlife Research 13:447-53. Government Publishing Service, Meat & Livestock Australia Limited. Canberra. 2000. Handbook of Australian Live- Shepherd, N. C. 1981. Predation of red stock. Fourth Edition. Meat & Live- kangaroos, Macropus rufus, by the stock Australia and Livecorp, North dingo, Canis familiaris dingo (Blu- Sydney. menbach), in north-western New Mech, L. D. 1988. The Wolf, the Ecol- South Wales. Australian Wildlife ogy and Behavior of an Endangered Research 8:255-62. Species, University of Minnesota Sinclair, R. G. and Bird, P. L. 1984. The Press, Minneapolis. reaction of Sminthopsis crassicau- Mech, L. D., Smith, D. W., Murphy, K. data to meat baits containing 1080: M. and MacNulty, D. R. 2001. Win- implications for assessing risk to ter severity and wolf predation on a non-target species. Australian formerly wolf-free elk herd. Journal Wildlife Research 11:501-7. of Wildlife Management 65:998- Thomson, P. C. 1986. The effective- 1003. ness of aerial baiting for the con- Newsome, A. E., Corbett, L. K. and Car- trol of dingoes in northwestern penter, S. M. 1980. The identity of Australia. Australian Wildlife the dingo. I. Morphological discrim- Research 13:165-176. inants of dingo and dog . Aus- Thomson, P. C. 1992. The behavioural tralian Journal of Zoology 28:615- ecology of dingoes in north-western 625. Australia. III. Hunting and feeding

104 Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Volume 19, 2004