Automated shepherds: responses of captive dingoes to sound and an inflatable, moving effigy
Bradley P. Smith
A G , Natalie B. Jaques A , Robert G. Appleby B C , Scott Morris D and Neil R. Jordan E F
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Smith Human–Wildlife CoExistence Lab, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University (Adelaide Campus), 44 Greenhill Road, Wayville, SA 5034, Australia.
B Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia.
C Wildspy Pty Ltd, 11/25 Depot Street, Banyo, Qld 4014, Australia.
D Radium Control Solutions, Unit 14, 8–10 Barry Road, Chipping Norton, NSW 2170, Australia.
E Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia.
F Taronga Institute of Science and Learning, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Taronga Western Plains Zoo, Dubbo, NSW 2830, Australia.
G Corresponding author. Email: b.p.smith@cqu.edu.au
Pacific Conservation Biology 27(2) 195-201 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC20022
Submitted: 21 February 2020 Accepted: 13 August 2020 Published: 15 September 2020
Abstract
Human–carnivore coexistence can be aided through non-lethal approaches that limit interaction between predators and livestock. Yet, investigations into effective deterrents, particularly in the Australian context with dingoes, are rare. We investigated two potential methods: an acoustic deterrent (series of gunshot noises), and an oversized inflatable human effigy that we dubbed ‘Fred-a-Scare’. The devices were deployed to determine whether they would deter captive dingoes (n = 12), from accessing food. The acoustic deterrent did not appear to repel the dingoes during the first trial (11/12 accessing the food; the same as control). However, use of the effigy device was associated with a significant reduction in dingoes approaching, with only 25% (9/36) accessing food across all trials. On the third and final trial (which were repeated daily), 42% (5/12) of dingoes accessed food. Used in conjunction with other devices and methods, and at intervals that reduce the risk of habituation, the inflatable effigy could provide a valuable tool for deterring dingoes, and perhaps other species, from particular areas, even where food (or potential prey) is present. This has potential for use in human-dingo conflict hotspots, such as campgrounds and some small livestock enterprises, but field trials are required to evaluate the technique in these contexts and with free-ranging dingoes.
Additional keywords: carnivores, deterrent, dingo, human–wildlife conflict, non-lethal management, predator control.
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716–723.| A new look at the statistical model identification.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Allen, B., and West, P. (2013). Influence of dingoes on sheep distribution in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 91, 261–267.
| Influence of dingoes on sheep distribution in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23782018PubMed |
Andelt, W. F., Woolley, T. P., and Hopper, S. N. (1997). Effectiveness of barriers, pyrotechnics. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 686–694.
Appleby, R. (2015). Dingo–human conflict: attacks on livestock. In ‘The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation’. (Ed. B. Smith.) Chapter 5, pp. 103–122. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Appleby, R., Smith, B., Bernede, L., and Jones, D. (2017). Utilising aversive conditioning to manage the behaviour of Fraser Island dingoes (Canis dingo). Pacific Conservation Biology 23, 335–358.
| Utilising aversive conditioning to manage the behaviour of Fraser Island dingoes (Canis dingo).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bangs, E., Jimenez, M., Niemeyer, C., Fontaine, J., Collinge, M., Krsichke, R., Handegard, L., Shivik, J. A., Sime, C., Nadeau, S., Mack, C., Smith, D. W., Asher, V., and Stone, S. (2006). Non-lethal and lethal tools to manage wolf–livestock conflict in the northwestern United States. In ‘Proceedingsof the 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference’ (Eds R.M. Timm, J. M. O’Brien). University of California, Davis, pp. 7–16
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.
| Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Beringer, J., VerCauteren, K., and Millspaugh, J. (2003). Evaluation of an animal-activated scarecrow and a monofilament fence for reducing deer use of soybean fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 492–498.
Bergstrom, B. J. (2017). Carnivore conservation: shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence. Journal of Mammalogy 98, 1–6.
| Carnivore conservation: shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bergstrom, B. J., Arias, L. C., Davidson, A. D., Ferguson, A. W., Randa, L. A., and Sheffield, S. R. (2014). License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conservation Letters 7, 131–142.
| License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Breck, S. W., Poessel, S. A., and Bonnell, M. A. (2017). Evaluating lethal and nonlethal management options for urban coyotes. Human–Wildlife Interactions 11, 133–145.
Breck, S., Williamson, R., Niemeyer, C., and Shivik, J. A. (2002). Non-lethal radio activated guard for deterring wolf depredation in Idaho: summary and call for research. In ‘Proceedings of the 20th Vertebrate Pest Conference’ (Eds R.M. Timm, R.H. Schmidt). University of California, Davis. pp. 223–226
Breitenmoser, U., Angst, C., Landry, J.-M., Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Linnell, D., and Weber, J.-M. (2005). Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In ‘People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence?’. (Eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thurgood, and A. Rabinowitz.) Chapter 4, pp. 86–106. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33, 261–304.
| Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Darrow, P. A., and Shivik, J. A. (2009). Bold, shy, and persistent: variable coyote response to light and sound stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 82–87.
| Bold, shy, and persistent: variable coyote response to light and sound stimuli.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Déaux, É. C., and Clarke, J. A. (2013). Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) acoustic repertoire: form and contexts. Behaviour 150, 75–101.
| Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) acoustic repertoire: form and contexts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Edgar, J., Appleby, R., and Jones, D. (2007). Efficacy of an ultrasonic device as a deterrent to dingoes (Canis lupus dingo): a preliminary investigation. Journal of Ethology 25, 209–213.
| Efficacy of an ultrasonic device as a deterrent to dingoes (Canis lupus dingo): a preliminary investigation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fleming, P. J. S., Allen, L. R., Lapidge, S. J., Robley, A., Saunders, G. R., and Thomson, P. C. (2006). A strategic approach to mitigating the impacts of wild canids: proposed activities of the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 753–762.
| A strategic approach to mitigating the impacts of wild canids: proposed activities of the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Linhart, S. B., Dasch, G. J., Johnson, R. R., and Roberts, J. D. (1992). Electronic frightening devices for reducing coyote predation on domestic sheep: efficacy under range conditions and operational use. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th Vertebrate Pest Conference’ (Eds J.E. Borrecco and R.E. Marsh). University of California, Davis. pp. 386–392. Available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0bh6p32k
Linhart, S. B., Sterner, R. T., Dasch, G. J., and Theade, J. W. (1984). Efficacy of light and sound stimuli for reducing coyote predation upon pastured sheep. Protection Ecology 6, 75–84.
McManus, J., Dickman, A., Gaynor, D., Smuts, B., and Macdonald, D. (2015). Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms. Oryx 49, 687–695.
| Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller, G. (1983). Responses of captive grizzly and polar bears to potential repellents. Bears: Their Biology and Management 5, 275–279.
| Responses of captive grizzly and polar bears to potential repellents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miller, G. (1987). Field tests of potential polar bear repellents. Bears: Their Biology and Management 7, 383–390.
| Field tests of potential polar bear repellents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nyhus, P. (2016). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41, 143–171.
| Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Okemwa, B., Gichuki, N., Virani, M., Kanya, J., Kinyamario, J., and Santangeli, A. (2018). Effectiveness of LED lights on bomas in protecting livestock from predation in southern Kenya. Conservation Evidence 15, 39–42.
Ohrens, O., Bonacic, C., and Treves, A. (2019). Non-lethal defense of livestock against predators: flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17, 32–38.
| Non-lethal defense of livestock against predators: flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pickard, L. (2008). Shepherding in colonial Australia. Rural History 18, 143–162.
| Shepherding in colonial Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Plaven, G. (2019). Tube man waves bye-bye to wolves. Capital Press. Available at https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/tube-man-waves-bye-bye-to-wolves/article_e2432b90-28a1-11e9-b430-538bf8e24fbf.html [accessed 17 February 2020]
Shivik, J. A. (2004). Non-lethal alternatives for predation management. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 19, 64–71.
Shivik, J. A. (2006). Tools for the edge: what’s new for conserving carnivores. BioScience 56, 253–259.
| Tools for the edge: what’s new for conserving carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shivik, J. A., Treves, A., and Callahan, P. (2003). Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary repellents. Conservation Biology 17, 1531–1537.
| Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary repellents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Slagle, K., Bruskotter, J. T., Singh, A. S., and Schmidt, R. H. (2017). Attitudes toward predator control in the United States: 1995 and 2014. Journal of Mammalogy 98, 7–16.
| Attitudes toward predator control in the United States: 1995 and 2014.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, B. (2015). ‘The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Smith, B. and Watson, L. (2015). The role of private sanctuaries in dingo conservation and the management of dingoes in captivity. In ‘The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation’. (Ed. B. Smith.) pp. 277–299. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Smith, B. P., and Appleby, R. G. (2018). Promoting human–dingo co-existence in Australia: moving towards more innovative methods of protecting livestock rather than killing dingoes (Canis dingo). Wildlife Research 45, 1–15.
| Promoting human–dingo co-existence in Australia: moving towards more innovative methods of protecting livestock rather than killing dingoes (Canis dingo).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, B., Appleby, R., and Jordan, N. (2020). Co-existing with dingoes: challenges and solutions to implementing non-lethal management. Australian Zoologist. , .
| Co-existing with dingoes: challenges and solutions to implementing non-lethal management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, L., Hutchinson, J., and DeNesti, L. (2014). Wolf–livestock nonlethal conflict avoidance: a review of the literature. Western Wildlife Outreach, Washington.
Spencer, K., Sambrook, M., Bremner-Harrison, S., Cilliers, D., Yarnell, R. W., Brummer, R., and Whitehouse-Tedd, K. (2020). Livestock guarding dogs enable human–carnivore coexistence: first evidence of equivalent carnivore occupancy on guarded and unguarded farms. Biological Conservation 241, 108256.
| Livestock guarding dogs enable human–carnivore coexistence: first evidence of equivalent carnivore occupancy on guarded and unguarded farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stickley, A., Mott, D., and King, J. (1995). Short-term effects of an inflatable effigy on cormorants at catfish farms. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23, 73–77.
Stone, S., Breck, S., Timberlake, J., Haswell, P., Najera, F., Bean, B., and Thornhill, D. (2017). Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for minimizing wolf–sheep conflict in Idaho. Journal of Mammalogy 98, 33–44.
| Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for minimizing wolf–sheep conflict in Idaho.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Treves, A., Krofel, M., and McManus, J. (2016). Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, 380–388.
| Predator control should not be a shot in the dark.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Bommel, L., and Johnson, C. N. (2014). Protecting livestock while conserving ecosystem function: non-lethal management of wild predators. In ‘Carnivores of Australia: Past, Present and Future’. (Eds A. S. Glen, and C. Dickman.) Chapter 14, pp. 323–354. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
van Eeden, L. M., Dickman, C. R., Ritchie, E. G., and Newsome, T. M. (2017). Shifting public values and what they mean for increasing democracy in wildlife management decisions. Biodiversity Conservation 26, 2759–2763.
| Shifting public values and what they mean for increasing democracy in wildlife management decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Eeden, L. M., Eklund, A., Miller, J. R. B., López-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G., Cejtin, M. R., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., Frank, J., Krofel, M., Macdonald, D. W., McManus, J., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. R., Newsome, T. M., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E. G., Schmitz, O. J., Stoner, K. J., Tourani, M., and Treves, A. (2018a). Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLOS Biology 16, e2005577.
| Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30226872PubMed |
van Eeden, L. M., Crowther, M., Dickman, C., Macdonald, D., Ripple, W., Ritchie, E., and Newsome, T. (2018b). Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation Biology 32, 26–34.
| Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28556528PubMed |
VerCauteren, K. C., LaVelle, M. J., and Moyles, S. (2003). Coyote-activated frightening devices for reducing sheep predation on open range. Proceedings of the 10th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. (Eds K. A. Fagerstone, G. W. Witmer). pp. 146–151. Wildlife Damage Management Working Group of the Wildlife Society, Fort Collins.
Vantassel, S. M. (2012). Wildlife management professionals need to redefine the terms: lethal control, nonlethal control, and live trap. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6, 335–338.
Zarco‐González, M. M., and Monroy‐Vilchis, O. (2014). Decreasing predation with low‐cost deterrents. Animal Conservation 17, 371–378.
| Decreasing predation with low‐cost deterrents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
