Experiments in no-impact control of dingoes: comment on Allen et al. 2013

Authors: Christopher N Johnson, Mathew S Crowther, Chris R Dickman, Michael I Letnic, Thomas M Newsome, Dale G Nimmo, Euan G Ritchie and Arian D Wallach.

Abstract

There has been much recent debate in Australia over whether lethal control of dingoes incurs environmental costs, particularly by allowing increase of populations of mesopredators such as red foxes and feral cats.

Allen et al. (2013) claim to show in their recent study that suppression of dingo activity by poison baiting does not lead to mesopredator release, because mesopredators are also suppressed by poisoning.

We show that this claim is not supported by the data and analysis reported in Allen et al.’s paper.

Dingo-poison-1080

The management of dingoes is a highly conflicted and frequently emotional issue in rural Australia. Image by Peripitus [CC-BY-SA-3.0] via Wikimedia Commons. Skull and Crossbones icon by Jens Tärning [CC-BY-SA-2.0] via the Noun Project.

Johnson CN, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Letnic MI, Newsome TM, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG, Wallach AD (2014) Experiments in no-impact control of dingoes: comment on Allen et al. 2013. Frontiers in Zoology 11:17 PDF DOI

One thought on “Experiments in no-impact control of dingoes: comment on Allen et al. 2013

  1. Leigh Mullan

    I wouldn’t class Invasive Animals CRC (or any science paid for by them) as a reliable source of information! Or a company that should be funding ‘ecological’ research!!

    Allen’s ‘research’ is funded by IACRC and of course any conclusions will provide his masters with their desired ‘results’…

    I would be more likely to trust the publications of scientists that have no vested interests in interpreting data to suit their masters, like those awarded the 2013 Eureka Environmental Science prise perhaps? Doesn’t ‘peer reviewed’ science, imply that the raw data is made available for peers to review?? why not in this case?

    IACRC are an organisation based on the continuation of 1080 baiting, trapping and anything anti-dingo and reliant on the cash gravy train that accompanies the scaremongering tactics employed to perpetuate their persecution. Their financial statements , although completely above board make interesting reading.. 18-20 MILLION Dollars in revenue per year, make this a nice little business.. No Science here..Just a proprietary corporation doing what they do best.. make money.. Of course their ‘findings’ and employed scientists are going to support their Business model.. http://www.invasiveanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/IACRC_FinStats_1011.pdf
    For those that don’t think that IA CRC is a business, you only need to look at their 2012-2017 commercialisation objectives.. (Industry collaboration, marketing, export, community uptake of new products) http://www.wadingo.com/IACRC45to47.pdf taken from their 2011-2012 annual report.. Looks like big business to me..

    If you want REAL science based evidence, Google ‘Dingo research, environment, ecology Apex predator’ etc.. Do not accept the ‘paid for’ conclusions based on creative data interpretation or manipulation.. don’t rely on ‘findings’ paid for by a Proprietary company who’s business is killing for Profit..

Comments are closed.