When free-ranging dogs threaten wildlife: Public attitudes toward management strategies in southern Chile.

Free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) significantly threaten wildlife, including endangered species. Although this problem resembles threats from other invasive animals, managing roaming dogs is even more fraught due to their close association with humans. Here we use interviews (n = 166) to document patterns of dog ownership and care and to measure public attitudes toward management strategies to control free-roaming dogs that threaten wildlife in rural areas of southern Chile. We compare attitudes toward lethal control and fines in scenarios where dogs attack livestock, children or wild animals or enter protected areas. We also test for variation in attitudes according to gender, age, education and proximity to urban areas. Most respondents (98.1%) opposed lethal control for at least one scenario and they were more likely to accept killing dogs that attacked sheep than those attacking wildlife. Similarly, support for fines was higher when dogs attacked livestock or people versus wild animals. Respondents consistently favored fining the owner over eliminating the problem dog. When asked about their management preferences, many respondents indicated that the movement of problem dogs-including to a lesser extent those threatening wildlife-should be restricted. However, in practice most dog-owners allowed one or more of their dogs to move freely at least part of the time. Finally, the wildlife species of concern mattered, e.g. 40% thought no action was necessary when dogs attack foxes, but this dropped to 12% for pudu (a small deer). In sum, participants had significantly more concern for livestock and human safety than for wildlife protection. We close by discussing management and policy implications.

Urban dogs in rural areas: Human-mediated movement defines dog populations in southern Chile.

Management strategies for dog populations and their diseases include reproductive control, euthanasia and vaccination, among others. However, the effectiveness of these strategies can be severely affected by human-mediated dog movement. If immigration is important, then the location of origin of dogs imported by humans will be fundamental to define the spatial scales over which population management and research should apply. In this context, the main objective of our study was to determine the spatial extent of dog demographic processes in rural areas and the proportion of dogs that could be labeled as immigrants at multiple spatial scales. To address our objective we conducted surveys in households located in a rural landscape in southern Chile. Interviews allowed us to obtain information on the demographic characteristics of dogs in these rural settings, human influence on dog mortality and births, the localities of origin of dogs living in rural areas, and the spatial extent of human-mediated dog movement. We found that most rural dogs (64.1%) were either urban dogs that had been brought to rural areas (40.0%), or adopted dogs that had been previously abandoned in rural roads (24.1%). Some dogs were brought from areas located as far as ∼700km away from the study area. Human-mediated movement of dogs, especially from urban areas, seems to play a fundamental role in the population dynamics of dogs in rural areas. Consequently, local scale efforts to manage dog populations or their diseases are unlikely to succeed if implemented in isolation, simply because dogs can be brought from surrounding urban areas or even distant locations. We suggest that efforts to manage or study dog populations and related diseases should be implemented using a multi-scale approach.