Adding Nuance to Our Understanding of Dog-Wildlife Interactions and the Need for Management

The interactions of dogs and wildlife are receiving increasing attention across the globe. Evidence suggests that dogs can negatively affect wildlife in a variety of ways, including through the risk of predation, by hybridizing with other Canis species, by acting as a reservoir or vector of pathogens, and by competing with wildlife for resources. A multitude of observations and case studies for each of these interactions has led to calls to prioritize increased management of dogs, for instance, through population reduction, vaccination, movement restrictions, and enhanced care of the dogs themselves. Here, I argue that while the risks that dogs present to wildlife are real, they vary in their importance across the globe. Furthermore, often the approaches used to address these risks are championed without a full understanding of the likelihood of success given the necessary spatial scale of management, the availability of alternative management approaches, and the role dogs play in societies. For instance, culling, vaccination, and animal husbandry approaches in reducing the impacts of dogs on wildlife sometimes fail to recognize that local human populations actively recruit replacement dogs, that vaccination often fails to reach levels necessary for herd immunity, and that enhanced dog husbandry may have indirect impacts on wildlife by requiring environmentally impactful activities. I suggest there is a need for attention not only to identify the impacts of dogs but also to determine where and when such interactions with wildlife are problematic and the likelihood of success for any proposed management approach. The impacts of dogs should be mediated in a context-specific manner that accounts for factors such as the local density of dogs, the susceptibility of local wildlife populations to the risks that dog populations may represent, and the local societal norms that underpin how dogs might be managed.