Fleming, Peter

Allen, Benjamin

Ballard, Guy

2013

Johnson and Ritchie (2012) have provided a criticism of our opinion piece (Fleming et al. 2012). There is some common ground, but we remain unconvinced by their view that our reasoning was unsound or beside the point. In this response, we discuss where Johnson and Ritchie have provided unconvincing evidence to refute our seven considerations, and reiterate and demonstrate why these considerations remain important. The mesopredator release or suppression hypothesis in Australian ecosystems must be objectively evaluated before positive management of dingoes and other free-ranging dogs is recommended or implemented. Adaptive comanagement of free-ranging dogs can be used for both biodiversity conservation and the mitigation of livestock predation but caution must be exercised when considering using free-ranging dogs as a conservation tool.

Australian Mammalogy, 35(1), p. 15-22

1836-7402

0310-0049

https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/20468

en

CSIRO Publishing

Cautionary considerations for positive dingo management: a response to the Johnson and Ritchie critique of Fleming et al. (2012)

Journal Article

Publication