Suchergebnisse

Abstract
ContextWild dogs, including dingoes and dingo cross-breeds, are vertebrate pests when they cause financial losses and emotional costs by harming livestock or pets, threaten human safety or endanger native fauna. Tools for lethal management of these animals currently include aerial baiting with poisoned baits. In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, aerial baiting was previously permitted at a rate of 40 baits km−1 but a maximum rate of 10 baits km−1 was subsequently prescribed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. The efficacy of these baiting rates has not been quantified in eastern Australia, undermining the value of the policy and rendering adaptive management efforts difficult, at best.
AimTo quantify the mortality rate of wild dogs exposed to aerial baiting at historic and currently approved rates, i.e. 40 baits per kilometre and 10 baits per kilometre, respectively.
MethodsWild dog mortality rates were measured at sites in mesic north-eastern NSW, where aerial baiting was applied to control wild dogs and contrasted with sites and individuals where no baiting was undertaken. In total, 132 wild dogs were trapped and fitted with GPS-VHF telemetry collars before annual aerial baiting programs. Collars were used to locate animals after aerial baiting and to determine the fates of individuals.
Key results90.6% of collared wild dogs exposed to aerial baiting at 40 baits km−1 died, whereas only 55.3% of those exposed to 10 baits km−1 died (Welsh's t=4.478, P=0.004, v=6.95). All wild dogs that were not exposed to toxic baits survived during the same periods.
ConclusionManagers using aerial baiting to maximise wild dog mortality in mesic south-eastern Australia should use 40 baits km−1 rather than 10 baits km−1.
ImplicationsWild dog population reduction for mitigation of livestock and faunal predation requires the application of efficacious control. The currently prescribed maximum aerial baiting rate of 10 baits km−1 is inadequate for controlling wild dog populations in mesic forest environments in NSW.

Context Ground baiting is a strategic method for reducing vertebrate pest populations. Best practice involves maximising bait availability to the target species, although sustaining this availability is resource intensive because baits need to be replaced each time they are taken. This study focused on improving pest population management through the novel baiting technique outlined in this manuscript, although there is potential use across other species and applications (e.g. disease management). Aims To develop and test an automated, intelligent, and semi-permanent, multi-bait dispenser that detects target species before distributing baits and provides another bait when a target species revisits the site. Methods We designed and field tested the Sentinel Bait Station, which comprises a camera trap with in-built species-recognition capacity, wireless communication and a dispenser with the capacity for five baits. A proof-of-concept prototype was developed and validated via laboratory simulation with images collected by the camera. The prototype was then evaluated in the field under real-world conditions with wild-living canids, using non-toxic baits. Key results Field testing achieved 19 automatically offered baits with seven bait removals by canids. The underlying image recognition algorithm yielded an accuracy of 90%, precision of 83%, sensitivity of 68% and a specificity of 96% throughout field testing. The response time of the system, from the point of motion detection (within 6–10 m and the field-of-view of the camera) to a bait being offered to a target species, was 9.81 ± 2.63 s. Conclusion The Sentinel Bait Station was able to distinguish target species from non-target species. Consequently, baits were successfully deployed to target species and withheld from non-target species. Therefore, this proof-of-concept device is able to successfully provide baits to successive targets from secure on-board storage, thereby overcoming the need for daily bait replacement. Implications The proof-of-concept Sentinel Bait Station design, together with the findings and observations from field trials, confirmed the system can deliver multiple baits and increase the specificity in which baits are presented to the target species using artificial intelligence. With further refinement and operational field trials, this device will provide another tool for practitioners to utilise in pest management programs.

Context Feral cats are responsible for the decline and extinction of species globally. Predation by feral cats is identified in Australian legislation as a key threatening process. However, clear guidance to local land managers on feral cat management techniques and their impacts, limitations and potential costs can be difficult to find. Aims In this study, feral cat management experts from around Australia identified available management techniques and their average environmental, social, and economic impact for different ecoregions and land-use types. Methods We convened a 1-day structured elicitation workshop with 19 experts and five facilitators. Experts identified the techniques used for feral cat management; the effectiveness, impact, and cost of each method; and the key knowledge gaps associated with feral cat management. Facilitators aided in the design and format of the workshop, led the discussion at each stage and collated the results. Key results Experts identified the following 10 techniques currently used in Australia: aerial baiting; ground baiting; leghold trapping; cage trapping; shooting; tracking with detector dogs; tracking by Indigenous Rangers; habitat modification; resource modification; and exclusion fencing. In general, experts highlighted that permits, legislation and scale of application constrained many of these techniques. Aerial baiting was considered the most effective technique for reducing feral cat populations in natural and production systems. Cage trapping, shooting, or tracking with detector dogs were considered more effective in residential areas. For all techniques, efficacy estimates varied according to the following three broad vegetation structural regions: (1) deserts and xeric shrublands; (2) forests and woodlands; and (3) grasslands, savannas and shrublands. Techniques considered to have the lowest social tolerance and highest impact to non-target native species included aerial baiting, ground baiting and leghold trapping. Techniques considered to have high social tolerance and low impact on non-target species included tracking by Rangers, tracking with detector dogs, and habitat and resource modification. Conclusions Estimates of management action efficacy differ among land-use types and at least three vegetation structural regions. However, social licence, logistic and legislative constraints are the key drivers of the availability of methods for these areas. Implications Feral cat management programs should consider how program strategy can be prioritised on the basis of technique availability, region of use and expected impact.

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public.