Translate 
Abstract
Dingo classification and management is complicated by hybridisation with domestic dogs. Northern Australia is a relatively high-risk zone for a rabies incursion, and in the event of an incursion, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who reside in this region would prioritise the protection of dingoes. Therefore, the classification of dingoes in this context is important. Twelve pictures of canids with features associated with both dingoes and domestic dogs from camera traps in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA), northern Queensland, were shown to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers (n = 3), biosecurity officers (n = 2), environmental health workers (n = 2), and residents (n = 39) in the NPA. Nearly all pictures (10/12) were classified as dingo or domestic dog (none as hybrid) and two were inconclusive (no overall agreement). Dingoes were consistently identified as medium to large-framed dogs, with a long nose, pointed ears, narrow abdomen, a bushy or feathered tail, and smooth coats of a single base colour. Some hybrid features were acceptable, including sable coats, lack of white tail tip or feet, and curled tail. These findings are a preliminary guide for identifying canids in the NPA region for whom management might be controversial. Building on this approach via further consultation with residents is needed to inform rabies response policy. Our approach using locally acquired camera trap pictures could also be extended to other regions in which dingoes have value but their management is controversial.
Highlights
Understanding how people classify wild animals is an essential first step in determining the values which people assign to a wild animal, and is critical to planning and implementing conservation or management strategies [1]
In the context of livestock protection, dingoes are included with feral dogs and dingo–dog hybrids under what is typically termed, “wild dog management”, because distinguishing between these canid types based on morphological features is difficult [7]; management in this context generally does not seek to do so [8]
Strong agreement about the types of dogs in pictures from camera traps demonstrated the characteristics that residents in the Northern Peninsula Area (NPA) of Australia consistently classified as belonging to dingoes, including their acceptance of some characteristics associated with hybridisation with domestic dogs
Summary
Understanding how people classify wild animals is an essential first step in determining the values which people assign to a wild animal, and is critical to planning and implementing conservation or management strategies [1]. Decision-making can become problematic in situations in which wild animals do not fit into Western classification systems—for example, in populations in which genetic material has introgressed from their domestic relatives. Management in such situations might require us to consider factors other than genetics when defining these populations in the wild—such as morphology, and their ecological and cultural roles—to determine how these animals are classified and, assigned a value by human societies. Disagreement and ambiguity surrounding the dingo’s classification is reflected in policy and management in Australia, with both the protection and persecution of dingoes promoted or legislated [5,6]. There are management contexts that require a more nuanced classification; a recent study in Northern Australia found that, in the event of an incursion of rabies, residents in remote communities would want dingoes protected [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call