Dog Versus Wildlife

hunting dog

c1894 Hunting Bird Dog Chasing Rabbit

Endeavors to restore local forests have opened my eyes to Earth’s ultimatum of the day — domesticate or rewild– as shown in this case, the domesticated dog vs wildlife. Urban natural spaces are mostly perceived as places for dogs to be wild and free at best, as dog dump ground at worst. Focusing on true wild life, I see habitat harm in action. Their paws compacting native seedlings and disturbing soil, creating a condition favoring invasive seeds to set and sprout. Their noises, scents, and even just their presence alarming mammals and flushing brush birds, decreasing fauna diversity. Their feces and urine tainting the land and creeks, in the end polluting ocean habitation. Finally, it was their mauling of a forest’s sole remaining fox (see Animal Control Officer’s Report), and reading Lee Hall’s On Their Own Terms: Animal Liberation for the 21st Century, that motivates this essay.

May this serve as a calling to those who love and tend to dogs to reflect on their relationship and refocus concern to nature. Why them? Because they are the ones who tune in with empathy, who do not hesitate when compassion demands action, who sacrifice with eternal loyalty. Those are the qualities needed if a diversity of animal lives is to remain viable, even for entire species to exist. But an expanded mindset does not come easy. There is always a quandary. A barrier to overcome. A predicament. A hard choice that, in this case, is no less than life or death. Here a change in mind begins with a confrontation on the domesticated dog that challenges the core of what it means to be human. To domesticate is to dominate is to master another. No matter how compassionately it’s done, in the end perpetual states of this kind of control have regrettable outcomes. That outcome is approaching.

Accompanying the bloating abundance of domesticated dogs is the burst of businesses heaping ample attention onto them. Lesser but parallel attention is paid to waning wildlife. Where is discussion of domesticated dogs’ effect on wildlife decline? Does this candid conversation topic ring too taboo for mainstream discourse? There are professional studies in professional journals on specific species impacted by dogs, but the degree of overall impact remains unstudied and unknown. Still, a literature review confirms commonsense: human bred pet and feral dogs are degrading and displacing wildlife habitats, including that of their own free relations. (see resources)

While Earth’s ill-health has distended into conventional thought, contributing causes and consequences continue to broaden in scope. Most recent concern is launching into how human food procurement impacts Earth’s ecosystems, particularly animal agriculture. With a breech across the mainstream taboo of criticizing the custom of pets, a study revealed up to 30% of farmed animal ‘products’ are fed to pets in the US. (see Environmental Impact of Food Consumption by Dogs and Cats) While animal agriculture is targeted as the prime culprit, agriculture itself is beginning to come under scrutiny. Hall reminds fellow vegans that all farming displaces wildlife habitats. (p. 65)

The ‘dog in the family’ lifeway leading to ‘dog in the park’ conflicts is the ‘canary in the mine’. Domesticating animals serves as a litmus test on our aptitude to end our reign of destruction if not even to save ourselves. If we cannot reverse our ‘dominion over wild’ mindset, we are doomed to dominate bioregions across Earth to death.

Domesticated Human Mindset on its Domesticated Dog

(W)olves, who attend to the demands of their own communities, not ours, are vilified for existing anywhere near us. While our domesticated dogs number in the hundreds of millions, their ancestral community is deemed a collective threat to subdue. We have gradually exterminated animals who scare us, and produced other animals who will accommodate our desires. And we end up calling it love. Domestication has become so customary that few people question it and most extol it… Increasingly, animals who aren’t amenable to playing a role within our society are hooked off the world stage. (Hall, pp 77–8)

One characteristic that moves humans to keep animals in existence is appealing physical features or actions that humans cherish as ‘cute’. When some humans feel enchanted by a nonhuman animal, they want to bring her as close as possible, to touch her, to play with her, to feed her. Eliciting an animal to respond to cues is justified with a rationale that interaction with nonhuman animals is a human right, a pure ideal. That ideal is fixed to our dominant position. Free living animals by and large interact and share affection with their own kind. Why have we sculpted unnatural inter-species relationships? In Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets, Yi_Fu Tuan asserts “…dominance may be combined with affection, and what is produced is the pet.” (p. 2). Are we aware of our dominance when we do something like separate an 8-week-old puppy from its mother and siblings? Hall challenges us to “recognize dominion in all of its forms: an imposed vulnerability to human control, no matter how adorable the dependent animal might appear to us.” (p. 8)

Our calling to connect with animals reflects our deep calling to return to nature. But like dogs, we no longer know our place in the wild, or how to live mutualistically with wildlife. The pet dog normative is at its very essence a grieving of and striving to restore lost connections. Through domestication our kind has stripped from both ourselves and dogs the wild connections for which we both intrinsically yearn. Misdirected attempts to quench our longing only remove wildness from us further. In our very existence as civilized beings, we and our domesticated animal extensions are bound to degrade and displace our longed-for nature home, making our return from civilization to nature imperative.

When confronted with environmental harm of their pet, dog activists’ denial runs swift and steep. Some reactive minds extend concern for wildlife to concern for domesticated dogs, somehow including pets in the sphere of wildlife. This confusion hints at humans’ innate focus on animals, while disremembering how we have bio-engineered the wild out of some of them. When they concede that their dogs do not live free in the wild, and probably couldn’t, another flawed justification inevitably springs forth as reason their dogs are entitled to priority over free living animals.

The dog activist mind positions dogs as victims while ignoring dogs’ harms to wild animals and wild habitat. They express their motives as altruistic for the dogs; they are humbly taking on responsibility to ‘rescue’ pets from abuse and certain death. Their motives are stated as altruistic for humans; there is scientific evidence that dogs make humans happy. Reminders of the plight of wildlife, species extinctions and such, does not relent their attention, time, energy, money, or undying devotion to their dogs — their choice is made. And when the harm is direct, in front of their eyes dogs disturbing birds or squirrels, their poor dogs are deserving of the harm they do. Dogs are ‘part of the family’. To judge dogs is to threaten a family member. Besides, they spay and neuter to help bring down dog overpopulation. It’s the breeders who are to blame. They are trying to fix the problem the breeders create.

In civilization and particularly under capitalism, ‘rescuing’ pets is self-defeating merely by contributing to the pet hype. Partaking in pet customs inevitably feeds the frenzy. The more dollars humans spend on dogs (currently billions/year) the greater the quantity needing ‘rescue’ will inevitably be. It’s market principles, high demand will draw up supply. And the market too is manipulating demand through advertising and such, spiraling into a dizzying fury of pets and profits. Those who conform with the pet normative are colluding with packaging dogs as products. Ah, but they can’t help that, so says the dog activist mind.

Just as they can’t change that early humans bred the wild out of wolves. It was a symbiotic relationship and remains so today, they claim. Wolves and humans grew close through mutual aid. They helped us with the hunt, provided us protection, and we fed and protected them in return. While it may have been a symbiotic relationship at one point, humans have bred select canines to the point where they are now parasitic, and not by their choice. By hyper-molding dogs to suit our pleasures, our species has genetically altered dogs into forms that have lost ability to thrive independently. Airs of mutuality between today’s dominant humans and their reliant dogs are incredulous. If there was at some point human-canine agreement to aid each other in lives of our own pursuits, it vanished long ago.

In reply to the damage dogs do to wildlife habitats, there is also the ‘they do it too’ defense. Wild animals disturb soils and water and other animals too, wild animals are no different. But they are different. Over time wild species co-adapt and form thriving, biodiverse, resilient communities. An ecosystem is flush in a symbiosis that humans have domesticated out of dogs. If a free-living species grows too prolific, adjustments and adaptations are made to maintain homeostasis. Wildlife control their own and others’ population rates. On the other hand, a hallmark of domestication, including human domesticated dogs, is over-breeding, invasion and colonization. The more dogs encroach into wild communities, the less healthy and resilient those communities become.

Humans have bred dogs for a life outside nature, like them. As much as humans adore and try to encourage dogs’ connection with nature, they are now too far removed. The feat of the modern human-dog relationship has external impacts that contradict and impede altruistic motives. “Domestication, captivity, or control are often taken for symbiosis. But these actions don’t bring us into harmony with the rest of the living world.” (Hall, p. 116) In their current form, the core role dogs have in nature is destroyer. Destroyer of the place in which descendants of their living genetic ancestors are struggling to live. How did we end up here?

History of the Human-Dog Association

The dream that ferocious animals, on the approach of man, would kneel in docility and thus be a fit companion in a perfect world may be among the most vainglorious of human aspirations. (Tuan, p. 85)

The symbiotic relationship that dog activists highlight was present in Neolithic settlements. Over 5,000 years ago humans began to exploit dogs through intentional breeding for specialized uses, such as guarding or hunting for sustenance, much later hunting for sport. As civilization crept forward humans bred for pleasure of play or companionship. Compared to other animals, dogs’ temperament was more malleable to manipulate, which resulted in high interest. Desired traits were playfulness, dependence, socialness, loyalty and compliance. As hierarchy intensified so too intensified our biological manipulation. Refined humans bred for status, with beauty and rarity of very precise physical features deemed valuable. (Tuan, pp 103–104) The more specialized the desired traits became, the more the breeding process required human intervention. Breeding ranged from humans choosing the dog mates and keeping them alone during the time the female was in heat, to physically binding the female down for the male to mount against her will. All pet dogs today are contrived constructs of human design, and the product of human coercion and rape. (Tuan, 106–109)

Dogs have been methodically manipulated into a fixed state of biologically dependent juveniles to ease the task of keeping them. Humans bred obedient disposition to acquire their compliance with being restrained to the confines of domesticated places. Dogs of today were bred for our chosen interests, not theirs, to fulfill our uses and desires, signaling human power over them and human power in general. It is not a coincidence that as civilization rose, so rose human’s desire for a sense of power over animals. Canines proved to be the perfect mark.

While in the beginning free living human-canine interactions were mutual, two species freely choosing to meet their interests with one another, as humans civilized the relationship transformed. Basis underlying subconscious feelings and motivations is implied. For example, as humans disconnected from life in nature, the human-canine relationship took on the role of filling the void of humans’ diminishing intimacy of natural human culture.

It was easy to entertain warm feelings toward animals that seemed to have no other function than as playthings. Moreover, humans needed an outlet for their gestures of affection and this was becoming more difficult to find in modern society as it began to segment and isolate people into their private spheres, to discourage casual physical contact, and to frown upon the enormously satisfying stances of patronage, such as laying one’s hand on another’s shoulder. (Tuan, p 112)

An interesting topic to study further would be how human touching has evolved from primitive to civilized cultures, and how our biotic social needs such as touch are misdirected, and consequences when our basic needs remain unmet.

Today human domination, much less affection through domination, has grown to be a prevalent accepted norm to the point that it no longer requires justification. Dogs are outright exploited for hunting, police, companion animals for civilization’s lonely, etc. Motivations are not questioned even if they are for pride, or entertainment. The happy nuclear family with a thoroughly tamed dog family member myth prevails. In an ironic twist, under capitalism humans’ subjugated dogs’ interests are gaining in expense. It almost appears dogs are the masters. But humans’ seemingly submissive acts of spending money on dogs, picking up dogs’ feces, etc., reveals the lengths to which human masters will go to maintain their arrangement of dominance. It is still the pet owner who decides how and when his dog property will live or leave or die, not the other way around. While wolves and pre-civilized humans may have had a mutual relationship, the relationship between domesticated humans and domesticated dogs is forever destined for power imbalance.

As for non-monetized costs of having dogs, they are not questioned, even if the cost of running dogs off trail to play wild is the sole remaining fox in a forest. Where resistance rises against humans dominating wildlife via their domesticated dogs, it is tyrannically ignored, excused or otherwise put down. To this indifferent audience Hall puts forth the fateful assessment humankind needs to heed: “(T)he idea that our domesticated animals trump animals we haven’t domesticated is… self-serving and environmentally dangerous.” (p. 116)

Aligning Motives with Actions, Journey Back to Nature

Assuming the motive is altruistic, beware that our caring ways can be succumb to distortion. Hall explains:

Are we taking a hard look at how our good instinct to help and care has given rise to a custom that forces other beings to look to us for care, and to be stuck inside this reliance? When we bring into existence other animals whose very being involves dependence upon us, a dependence they cannot outgrow, the unequal relationship is not mitigated by caring…

We need a social movement that inspires us to respect nonhuman animals, to want them to remain capable of living and thriving in the habitats to which they’ve naturally adapted, rather than be alienated from those spaces… To let wolves… run their own lives. After all, why should any one group (humans, that is) come along and expect all others to conform to its desires — and then justify this by applying the governing group’s idea of care? (p. 5)

If pet customs do more harm than good, what next? Hall calls animal liberationists to “transcend the urge to tame” ( p. 88) Here, humans who are considering taking a dog to a natural area, or breeding or adopting a dog, or in other ways getting involved in the pet ethos, are called to transcend the urge to participate.

This is an either/or dilemma, pets versus wildlife, and even domesticated pets versus domesticated ‘food’ animals. The decision to curb or abstain from participating is mandated by all the farmed animals kept and killed for dog food, all the wild animals whose habitats are encroached into or replaced by farms and garbage dumps speckled with empty dog food containers and plastic bags of dog feces, and by wildlife pushed out of space, and suffering direct encounters like the mauled fox. In memory of them, this is a calling to reflect on wilderness, to become aware of feelings for and motives with nature, and to act.

Some may wish to first raise their awareness in regards to their underlying feelings and motivations with dogs. Feelings and motives can be redirected away from domesticated life toward nature connection. For example, someone’s motives for adopting a rescue dog are giving and receiving unconditional love (redirect — give more love to humans by inviting them to join you on nature walks). Comradery with a community of dog owners who gather at the park (redirect — join or organize groups that gather together to remove invasive plants from wildlife habitat). Prestige of the breed as a status symbol (redirect — either explore releasing that drive of power or readdress it into volunteering at a rehabilitation center for healing wild animals). Self-reliance by using their dog for hunting (redirect — explore less intensive food finding like foraging, food forests, permaculture, wild tending). While this shift intentionally curtails hierarchical thinking and actions, power and control can be helpful if directed toward assisting wilderness vitality. Hall calls for both a “serious movement for animals’ autonomous lives.” (p. 15), and further “an exciting movement, full of risks and bound to meet resistance, but one that could ultimately safeguard Earth’s great biotic community.” (p. 78)

Deeper still, Hall questions humans’ reign over other animals with the broadest scope, “How do they (wild animals) stand a chance as long as we entitle ourselves to the lands on which they live?” (p. 7) How do we change our culture to end our destruction and reverse our domination? As beings ourselves in domesticated form, we instinctively long for a return to our place in nature, but how?

When we become aware that our obsession with dogs represents our misdirected longing to return to nature, we can reengage the nature connection we truly seek. That may be the beginning of humans’ rewilding Earth and ourselves. We can heed the calling to give back, to protect and let expand wild places for wild animals. We can transition, redefine what a human being is. Hall posits that humans shift our self-identity to contributors in an interconnected bio-community,” that we

“cultivate an attitude of respect for other animals by demonstrating that we can stop manipulating them. This means… being mindful of their interests in their lives, communities, and futures on this planet free from our dominion. (p. 70)

We can shift from dominating and destroying to co-existing and co-relating. As to the question of how to proceed with the superfluous, domesticated dogs, a change in our focus from domestication of animals to free life with free animals will eliminate the desire and populist reinforcement to continue breeding them into existence. As free, nature-centered humans rid their desire to play master, we will no longer need dogs to serve us.

The problem is not merely of domesticated dogs, but of humans domesticating. Humans’ habituation into playing master of the world is a hard role to drop, especially in this unavoidable civilized landscape we’ve constructed. As much as we think our reign empowers us with freedoms, it inescapably ensnares us and everything we touch with it. Renouncing our wrangled rule is a last hope for true free life and a feasible future.

(R)elinquishment of dominion is the final frontier — the greatest risk the human spirit could take. For we are primates. In some regions of the planet we’re still the lions’ prey. Maybe it’s no surprise that we’d fashion weapons, and set out to vanquish and tame. That we’d reformulate food chains; invent, subscribe to, and jump to the top of hierarchies, and then justify oppressions — from the “man the hunter” identity, to… everyday bullying… Meanwhile, the planet’s communities of free-living animals are dying… (W)e could challenge ourselves to change: to cultivate respect for… the ecology and the life force that sustains us. (Hall, p. 92)

Wilderness awareness beckons a change that affirms and restores thriving life communities. To give to a nature community is to belong to it. We find our way back to nature by responding to the awareness of domestication’s damage with proportional healing action. That is at first how we will find the place for which we long, in nature.

 

 


 

References

 

Animal Control Officer’s Report

https://leashdogs.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/animal-control-officers-report/

 

Dominance & Affections: The Making of Pets by Yi-Fu Tuan

 

Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301

 

On Their Own Terms: Animal Liberation for the 21st Century by Lee Hall.

 

 

Inspirations

 

Animal Oppression & Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict by David A. Nibert

 

Bringing Back the Bush: The Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration by Joan Bradley

 

Bringing Nature Home: How You Can Sustain Wildlife with Native Plants by Douglas W. Tallamy

 

Children’s Literature, Domestication, and Social Foundation: Narratives of Civilization and Wilderness by Layla AbdelRahim

 

Comfortably Unaware: What We Choose to Eat is Killing Us and Our Planet by Dr. Richard A. Oppenlander

 

Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth? by Alan Weisman

 

Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres

 

Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective by Marti Kheel

 

A Northwoodsman’s Guide to Everyday Compassion, by Kenneth Damro

 

Rogue Primate: An Exploration of Human Domestication by John A. Livingston

 

An Unnatural Order: Uncovering the Roots of our Domination of Nature and Each Other by Jim Mason

 

 

Resources

 

The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. Natural Areas Journal http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3375/0885-8608(2008)28%5B218%3ATEODOW%5D2.0.CO%3B2

 

Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural places

Biology Letters (2007) 3, 611–613,

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/C3JR6EEW/611.full.pdf

 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area Final Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/1930EM73/GOGA_Camera_Ready_FEIS_EPA_File_Volume_1.pdf

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/ITQL6K6K/GOGA_Camera_Ready_FEIS_EPA_File_Volume_2_Part_1.pdf

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/C3JR6EEW/GOGA_Camera_Ready_FEIS_EPA_File_Volume_2_Part_2.pdf

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/ONHMEMLR/GOGA_Camera_Ready_FEIS_EPA_File_Volume_2_Part_3.pdf

 

Impacts of Habitat Restoration and the Status of Avian Communities in Seattle City Parks. A Technical Report by the Seattle Audubon Society.

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/ITQL6K6K/Seattle_Audubon_NBP_Report_FINAL_May_2015.pdf

 

Metro Parks Dog Ban Protects Native Wildlife. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/metros_dog_ban_protects_native.html#incart_river_home

 

Seattle Urban Carnivore Study

file:///C:/Users/rhond/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/ONHMEMLR/Seattle-Urban-Carnivore-Study_Seattle-University_Mark-Jordan.pdf

 

Citations for The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. Natural Areas Journal

Links at http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3375/0885-8608(2008)28%5B218%3ATEODOW%5D2.0.CO%3B2

 

Allen, J.J., M. Bekoff, and R.L. Crabtree. 1999. An observational study of coyote (Canis latrans) scent-marking and territoriality in Yellowstone National Park. Ethology 105:289–302.

[APPMA] American Pet Products Manufactures Association2007. 2007–2008 APPMA National Pet Owners Survey. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. Greenwich, Conn.

Bauer, M. 2004. Recreation conflict at six Boulder County Parks and Open Space Properties: a baseline study. Boulder County Parks and Open Space. Longmont, Colo.

Bekoff, M. 1979. Scent-marking by free-ranging domestic dogs – olfactory and visual components. Biology of Behavior 4:123–139.

Bekoff, M. and R. Ickes. 1999. Behavioral interactions and conflict among domestic dogs, black-tailed prairie dogs, and people in Boulder, Colorado. Anthrozoos 12:105–110.

Bekoff, M. and C. Meaney. 1997. Interactions among dogs, people and the environment in Boulder, Colorado: a case study. Anthrozoos 10:23–31.

Brown, D.G., K.M. Johnson, T.R. Loveland, and D.M. Theobald. 2005. Rural landuse trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 15:1851–1863.

Butler, J.R.A., J.T. du Toit, and J.A. Bingham. 2004. Free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as predators and prey in rural Zimbabwe: threats of competition and disease to large wild carnivores. Biological Conservation 115:369–378.

Causey, M.K. and C.A. Cude. 1978. Feral dog predation of the gopher tortoise in Southeast Alabama. Herpetological Review 9:94–95.

Collins, W.B. 1981. Habitat preferences of mule deer as rated by pellet-group distributions. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:969–972.

Coppinger, R. and L. Coppinger. 2001. Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution. Scribner. New York.

Cutler, T.L. and D.E. Swann. 1999. Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:571–581.

Daniels, T.J. and M. Bekoff. 1989. Spatial and temporal resource use by feral and abandoned dogs. Ethology 81:300–312.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University of Colorado Press. Niwot.

Forrest, A. and C.C. St. Clair. 2006. Effect of dog leash laws and habitat type on avian and small mammal communities in urban parks. Urban Ecosystems 9:51–66.

Fox, M.W. 1971. Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canids. Harper and Row. New York.

George, S. and K Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133:107–117.

Glennon, M.J., W.F. Porter, and C.L. Demers. 2002. An alternative field technique for estimating diversity of small-mammal populations. Journal of Mammalogy 83:734–742. BioOne,

Gorman, M.L. and B.J. Trowbridge. 1989. The role of odor in the social lives of carnivores. Pp 57–88. in Gittleman, J.L., editor. ed. Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, N.Y.

Green, J.S. and J. Flinders. 1981. Diameter and pH comparisons of coyote and red fox scats. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:765–767.

Halfpenny, J.C. 2001. Scats and Tracks of the Rocky Mountains. 2nd edGlobe Pequot Press. Guilford, Conn.

Henry, J.D. 1977. Use of urine marking in scavenging behavior of red foxes, Vulpes vulpes. Behaviour 61:82–106.

Holling, C.S. and C.R. Allen. 2002. Adaptive inference for distinguishing credible from incredible patterns in nature. Ecosystems 5:319–328

Johnson, M.K. and R.C. Belden. 1984. Differentiating mountain lion and bobcat scats. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:239–244.

Johnson, W.C. and S.K. Collinge. 2004. Landscape effects on black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Biological Conservation 115:487–497.

Knight, R.L. and D. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pp 51–69. in Knight, R.L. and D. Cole, editors. eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington D.C.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. (eds.). 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Kohn, M.H, E.C. York, D.A. Kamradt, G. Haught, R.M. Sauvajot, and R.K. Wayne. 1999. Estimating population size by genotyping faeces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 266:657–663.

Laurenson, K., C. Sillero-Zubiri, H. Thompson, F. Shiferaw, S. Thirgood, and J. Malcolm. 1998. Disease as a threat to endangered species: Ethiopian wolves, domestic dogs and canine pathogens. Animal Conservation 1:273–280.

Lima, S.L. 1998. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions: what are the ecological effects of anti-predator decision-making. Bioscience 48:25–34.

Lowry, D.A. and K.L. McArthur. 1978. Domestic dogs as predators on deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6:38–39.

MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351–358.

Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, and W.C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 24:36–42.

Major, J.T. and J.A. Sherburne. 1987. Interspecific relationships of coyotes, bobcats and red foxes in western Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:606–616.

Manning, R.E., N.L. Ballinger, J. Marion, and J. Roggenbuck. 1996. Recreation management in natural areas: problems and practices, status and trends. Natural Areas Journal 16:142–146.

Mengel, R.M. 1971. A study of dog-coyote hybrids and implications concerning hybridization in Canis. Journal of Mammalogy 52:316–336. \

Mertz, S. 2002. Compliance with Leave No Trace frontcountry principles – a preliminary examination of visitor behavior. City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. Boulder, Colo.

Miller, J.E. and B.D. Leopold. 1992. Population influences: predators. Pp 119–128. in Dickson, J.G., editor. ed. The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management. Stackpole Books. Mechanicsburg, Pa.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife response to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124–132.

Odell, E. and R.L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:1143–1150.

Ott, R.L. and M. Longnecker. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 5th edDuxbury. Pacific Grove, Calif.

Peters, G. and W.C. Wozencraft. 1989. Acoustic communication by fissiped carnivores. Pp 14–56. in Gittleman, J.L., editor. ed. Carnivore Behavior, Ecology and Evolution. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, N.Y.

Powell, K.L., R.J. Robel, K.E. Kemp, and M.D. Nellis. 1994. Aboveground counts of black-tailed prairie dogs – temporal nature and relationship to burrow entrance density. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:351–355.

Ripple, W.J. and R.L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems. Bioscience 54:755–766. BioOne,

Sargeant, G.A., D.H. Johnson, and W.E. Berg. 1998. Interpreting carnivore scent-station surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1235–1245.

Sargeant, G.A., D.H. Johnson, and W.E. Berg. 2003. Sampling designs for carnivore scent-station surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:289–298.

SAS, Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 8.0. SAS Institute. Cary, N.C.

Scott, M.D. and K. Causey. 1973. Ecology of feral dogs in Alabama. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:253–265.

Serpell, J. 1995. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions With People. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K.

Sime, C.A. 1999. Domestic dogs in wildlife habitats. Pp 8.1–8.17. in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, editors. coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. Helena, Mont.

Soulé, M.E., J.A. Estes, B. Miller, and D.L. Honnold. 2005. Strongly interacting species: conservation policy, management, and ethics. Bioscience 55:168–176. BioOne,

Taylor, A.R. and R L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications 13:951–963.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Ga.

Watson, A.E., D.N. Cole, D.L. Turner, and P.S. Reynolds. 2000. Wilderness recreation use estimation: a handbook of methods and systems. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-56, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Whittaker, D. and R.L. Knight. 1999. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:312–317.

Woolf, A. and G.F. Hubert Jr.. 1998. Status and management of bobcats in the United States over three decades: 1970s–1990s. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:287–293.

Cited by

Annie Kellner, Scott Carver, Ashley Gramza, Jesse S. Lewis, Sue VandeWoude and Kevin R. Crooks. (2017) Outdoor Recreation at the Wildland—Urban Interface: Examining Human Activity Patterns and Compliance with Dog Management Policies. Natural Areas Journal 37:4, 515-529. Online publication date: 9-Oct-2017.

M.L. Reilly, M.W. Tobler, D.L. Sonderegger, P. Beier. (2017) Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biological Conservation 207, 117-126. Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017.

Cara A. Faillace and Bradley W. Smith. (2016) Incubating snowy plovers (Charadrius nivosus) exhibit site-specific patterns of disturbance from human activities. Wildlife Research 43:4, 288-297. Online publication date: 17-Jun-2016.

Martijn J.A. Weterings, Marco Zaccaroni, Nikki van der Koore, Linda M. Zijlstra, Henry J. Kuipers, Frank van Langevelde, Sipke E. van Wieren. (2016) Strong reactive movement response of the medium-sized European hare to elevated predation risk in short vegetation. Animal Behaviour 115, 107-114. Online publication date: 1-May-2016.

Michael D. Breed, Janice Moore. 2016. Conservation and Behavior. Animal Behavior, 499-538.

Jesse S. Lewis, Larissa L. Bailey, Sue VandeWoude, Kevin R. Crooks. (2015) Interspecific interactions between wild felids vary across scales and levels of urbanization. Ecology and Evolution 5:24, 5946-5961. Online publication date: 9-Dec-2015.

Haemish I.A.S. Melville, Warren C.Conway, Michael L.Morrison, Christopher E. Comer and Jason B. Hardin. (2015) Prey Selection by Three Mesopredators that are Thought to Prey on Eastern Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo sylvestris) in the Pineywoods of East Texas. Southeastern Naturalist 14:3, 447-472. Online publication date: 18-Aug-2015.

Jaroslav Červinka, Jan Riegert, Stanislav Grill, Martin Šálek. (2015) Large-scale evaluation of carnivore road mortality: the effect of landscape and local scale characteristics. Mammal Research 60:3, 233-243. Online publication date: 16-May-2015.

Yu-Fai Leung, Chelsey Walden-Schreiner, Katharine Conlon, Anna B. Miller. (2015) A simple method for monitoring dog leash compliance behavior in parks and natural areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 9, 11-16. Online publication date: 1-Apr-2015.

Jaroslav Červinka, Lucie Drahníková, Jakub Kreisinger, Martin Šálek. (2014) Effect of habitat characteristics on mesocarnivore occurrence in urban environment in the Central Europe. Urban Ecosystems 17:4, 893-909. Online publication date: 2-May-2014.

  1. Holderness-Roddam, P.B. McQuillan. (2014) Domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ) as a predator and disturbance agent of wildlife in Tasmania. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 21:4, 441-452. Online publication date: 24-Sep-2014.

Zach J. Farris, Sarah M. Karpanty, Felix Ratelolahy, Marcella J. Kelly. (2014) Predator–Primate Distribution, Activity, and Co-occurrence in Relation to Habitat and Human Activity Across Fragmented and Contiguous Forests in Northeastern Madagascar. International Journal of Primatology 35:5, 859-880. Online publication date: 15-Jul-2014.

María Marcela Orozco, D.V.M., Ph.D., Luciano Miccio, D.V.M., Gustavo Fabián Enriquez, B.Sc., Fabián Eduardo Iribarren, D.V.M., and Ricardo Esteban Gürtler, B.Sc., Ph.D.. (2014) SEROLOGIC EVIDENCE OF CANINE PARVOVIRUS IN DOMESTIC DOGS, WILD CARNIVORES, AND MARSUPIALS IN THE ARGENTINEAN CHACO. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 45:3, 555-563. Online publication date: 23-Sep-2014.

Michael A. Weston, James A. Fitzsimons, Geoffrey Wescott, Kelly K. Miller, Kasun B. Ekanayake, Thomas Schneider. (2014) Bark in the Park: A Review of Domestic Dogs in Parks. Environmental Management 54:3, 373-382. Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014.

Hari P. Sharma, Jerrold L. Belant, Jon E. Swenson. (2014) Effects of livestock on occurrence of the Vulnerable red panda Ailurus fulgens in Rara National Park, Nepal. Oryx 48:02, 228-231. Online publication date: 13-Mar-2014.

Robert Moss, Fiona Leckie, Amanda Biggins, Tim Poole, David Baines and Kenny Kortland. (2014) Impacts of Human Disturbance on Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus Distribution and Demography in Scottish Woodland. Wildlife Biology 20:1, 1-18. Online publication date: 6-Apr-2014.

Dagny Krauze-Gryz and Jakub Gryz. (2014) Free-Ranging Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) in Central Poland: Density, Penetration Range and Diet Composition. Polish Journal of Ecology 62:1, 183-193. Online publication date: 2-Jan-2015.

Martin Šálek, Jaroslav Červinka, Eliška Padyšáková, Jakub Kreisinger. (2014) Does spatial co-occurrence of carnivores in a Central European agricultural landscape follow the null model?. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60:1, 99-107. Online publication date: 20-Jul-2013.

Roberta Chirichella, Simone Ciuti, Marco Apollonio. (2013) Effects of livestock and non-native mouflon on use of high-elevation pastures by Alpine chamois. Mammalian Biology – Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 78:5, 344-350. Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013.

Jaroslav Červinka, Martin Šálek, Eliška Padyšáková, Petr Šmilauer. (2013) The effects of local and landscape-scale habitat characteristics and prey availability on corridor use by carnivores: A comparison of two contrasting farmlands. Journal for Nature Conservation 21:2, 105-113. Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013.

HEATHER A. LUMPKIN, SCOTT M. PEARSON, MONICA G. TURNER. (2012) Effects of Climate and Exurban Development on Nest Predation and Predator Presence in the southern Appalachian Mountains (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology 26:4, 679-688. Online publication date: 24-May-2012.

Loreta Rosselli, F. Gary Stiles. (2012) Wetland habitats of the Sabana de Bogotá Andean Highland Plateau and their birds. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22:3, 303-317. Online publication date: 20-Mar-2012.

G.D. Daniels, J.B. Kirkpatrick. (2012) The influence of landscape context on the distribution of flightless mammals in exurban developments. Landscape and Urban Planning 104:1, 114-123. Online publication date: 1-Jan-2012.

Jaroslav Červinka, Martin Šálek, Petr Pavluvčík, Jakub Kreisinger. (2011) The fine-scale utilization of forest edges by mammalian mesopredators related to patch size and conservation issues in Central European farmland. Biodiversity and Conservation 20:14, 3459-3475. Online publication date: 4-Aug-2011.

SARAH E. REED, ADINA M. MERENLENDER. (2011) Effects of Management of Domestic Dogs and Recreation on Carnivores in Protected Areas in Northern California. Conservation Biology 25:3, 504-513. Online publication date: 10-Feb-2011.

Julie K. Young, Kirk A. Olson, Richard P. Reading, Sukh Amgalanbaatar and Joel Berger. (2011) Is Wildlife Going to the Dogs? Impacts of Feral and Free-Roaming Dogs on Wildlife Populations. BioScience 61:2, 125-132. Online publication date: 11-Feb-2011.

ABI TAMIM VANAK, MATTHEW E. GOMPPER. (2009) Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Review 39:4, 265-283. Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009.

Kathryn J. H. Williams, Michael A. Weston, Stacey Henry, Grainne S. Maguire. (2009) Birds and Beaches, Dogs and Leashes: Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:2, 89-101. Online publication date: 31-Mar-2009.

Advertisements

One thought on “Dog Versus Wildlife

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s