Mixing dingoes with other domestic dogs

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dingo" with an unusual snout pattern

The mixing of dingoes with other domestic dogs is an ongoing process, the populations of wild domestic dogs in Australia concerns. The population of wild domestic dogs in Australia is today possibly higher than ever before, but the proportion of so-called "pure" dingoes (dogs with only dingoes as ancestors) has declined sharply in the last few decades and is still considered to be falling.

With the progressive mating of dingoes with other domestic dogs, today's wild domestic dog population (i.e., the mixed breed dog population ) on the Australian continent has a wider range of coat colors and body shapes than it did before European colonization began. The implications of this process are not clear, and the possibility of potential problems, as well as the desire to get the "pure" dingo, often leads to a strong rejection of this blending.

Causes, degrees and forms of intermingling

As far as we know today, the dingo came to Australia as a domestic dog together with seafarers and went wild there. It has existed on the continent for at least 3500 years, which has been proven by both archaeological and genetic studies and finds. It is also assumed that there were no notable introductions of other domestic dogs before the arrival of the Europeans.

With the colonization of the Australian continent by the Europeans in the 18th century, their domestic dogs also came to Australia. Since then, dogs have found their way into the wild (intentionally and unintentionally) and established feral populations, especially where the number of dingoes has been reduced by humans. There are few reports of such exposures; however, their happened is supported by reports of certain breeds of domestic dogs living in the wild that have been sighted or captured in remote areas. The spread of farm and pasture activities in the 19th century led to the further spread of other domestic dogs, both from the household of humans and in feral form. Mixing with the native dingoes has probably taken place since the arrival of the first domestic dogs in 1788.

Causes and forms

Red Australian Cattle Dog, a breed that originated from the crossbreeding of Australian dingoes and other domestic dogs

According to current knowledge, dingoes mix easily with other domestic dogs, which is why the term “wild dog” is often used today to denote all dingoes, feral domestic dogs and mixed breeds, as the boundaries between these are not clear.

Mixing dingoes with other domestic dogs is by no means unplanned, and dingoes were used to breed some dog breeds. These attempts at breeding existed before the middle of the 19th century. So far, only the breeding of the Australian Cattle Dog has been considered successful . The kelpie may also have dingo ancestors, but this has not been proven.

It is sometimes claimed that crossbreeding and rearing of mongrels in the wild is a rare phenomenon due to supposedly radical differences in behavior and biology and the harshness of the wild. It is known, however, that there are always dogs that come from the human household, but still manage to survive and reproduce by hunting on their own. Eberhard Trumler was of the opinion that mixed breeds of dingoes and shepherds could have a good chance of survival in the wild. Also previously reported Alfred Brehm on matings between dingoes and other domestic dogs of both sexes. There have also been reports that dingo-like wild dogs have mated with tethered female domestic dogs.

Diagram of the mixing of dingoes with domestic dogs (after Corbett 1995a)

The rate of intermingling increases when dingoes are attracted to urban centers due to the prospect of easily accessible food. However, since the interactions between dingoes and other feral domestic dogs in the bush differ greatly from those in urban places, this also applies to the rate of interbreeding. It is known that domestic dogs are repeatedly lost in the bush. It is assumed, however, that the behavioral differences between dingo and domestic dogs are large enough to make it difficult for these dogs to integrate into the dingo society and thus to reproduce, especially in more remote areas. A further spread of mongrels could accelerate the intermingling due to the smaller behavioral differences and partly explain the higher proportion of mongrels in Southeast Australia. Most likely, the territorial behavior of established dingo packs, which discourages all unfamiliar dogs from the pack and thus from reproduction, curbs the rate of interbreeding. The fact that people keep dingoes as pets (for example in Eastern Australia) that use their human's home as a starting point for forays or are abandoned by their owners increases the frequency of contact between dingoes and other domestic dogs, as they that would curb reproduction and thus intermingling, have not learned. Many of these hybrids are released by their owners and migrate into the bush, where they can mix with "pure" dingoes. In addition, mixed breeds can be shown to arise when herding dogs mix with dingoes; This is possible even with such dogs that have been specially acquired to fight dingoes.

So far there is no evidence that the known killing methods used to control dingoes and other wild dogs have been effective in slowing the process of interbreeding. Rather, it seems that they accelerate the process of intermingling as they break up traditional pack structures and thereby disappear some population control mechanisms.

Degree of mixing

Dingo samples collected in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that half of the wild dogs in southern Australia were dingo hybrids; Research in the early 1980s confirmed the trend of increasing intermingling. Based on skull features, it was found that in the highlands of the southeast the proportion of “pure” dingoes fell from around 49% in the 1960s to around 17% in the 1980s. In 1985 studies in Southeast Australia, only 55% of 407 “dingoes” examined were not mixed-breed. 36% were dingo hybrids and the rest were wild dogs of other origins. In the mid-1980s, the proportion of “pure” dingoes or dingo hybrids in central Australia (based on skull features) was estimated at 97.5% and 2.4%, in contrast to 55.3% and 33 in south-east Australia , 92%. It was concluded from these results that mixed populations are to be expected where human settlements exist and wild dogs remain, and that mixed breeds are less common in remote areas. Broken staining patterns, reddish with white, black or bluish spots, completely black, brown or bluish, black and white and piebald stripes were also far more numerous in the second area (34.8%) than in the first (5.7%). In Southeast Australia, there was no difference in the frequency of coloration between areas near farmland and forest. Many of these color variations also appeared in cross-breeding experiments between reddish dingoes and other domestic dogs of different colors. Overall, about 50% of the population in eastern and southern Australia consisted of mongrels in the 1980s. Depending on the area, the proportion of “pure” dingoes in Southeast Australia was assumed to be at least 22% to a maximum of 65%. In the mid-1990s, 100 dog skulls from the Queensland Museum were measured and analyzed to determine the frequency of dingoes in Queensland's dog populations . The highest incidence (95%) was found in skulls from central Queensland and the highest incidence in other domestic dogs and mixed dingoes (50%) was found in the southeastern part of the country. Fraser Island had only a small proportion of dingo hybrids (17%), mostly confined to the southern half of the island. At the turn of the millennium, measurements of 180 skulls from seven main areas of Australia could only classify 74% of the skulls as dingo skulls, and none of the populations contained only dingo skulls. In a study in New South Wales , according to Laurie Corbett, all of the samples examined came from mongrels.

Assumed distribution of dingo hybrids in 2009

Mixed breeds of dingoes and other domestic dogs are now considered to be present in all populations; their proportion is believed to be increasing, and completely “pure” populations may no longer exist. However, it is not known exactly how far this mixing goes. The intermingling may have reached such a high level that there are large populations made up of only hybrids. Traditional methods of identifying dingoes, dingo hybrids, and other domestic dogs (based on skull features, reproductive patterns, and coat colors) also suggest that interbreeding is widespread and occurs in all populations in Australia, particularly the south and east. Based on skull features, there are few "pure" dingoes left in New South Wales, and the "pure" form may have locally become extinct in the highlands of the southeast. In regions that are considered to be safe for “pure” dingoes, such as the Kakadu National Park and other parts of the Northern Territory , mongrels also exist or appear in the contact zones between bushland and localities. Mongrels have also been observed in northern Australia and in remote areas.

The proportion of half-breeds in the total population on the mainland has already been estimated at around three quarters. According to some sources, the dog population in southwest Australia and along the east coast today is 90% mixed breed dogs, according to others 80% mixed breed dogs along the east coast and only 15% to 20% of the dingoes in Southeast Australia and Southeast Queensland are said to be To be “pure”. In the southwest of Australia and inland Queensland the dingoes are probably still 90–95% "pure". Genetic studies in recent years have shown that the population of wild dogs in the southern Blue Mountains is 96.8% hybrid dingo. The information (or estimates) how many mixed race there are in Australia are high, but not uniform. Sometimes there are claims that most populations are 80% hybrids or that 80% or 90% of all wild dogs in Australia are dingo hybrids. The rate of mixing is believed to be high, but quantification is hampered by the lack of reliable testing.

These hybrids do not necessarily have to have a small proportion of dingogens. An analysis of 56 wild dogs from Southeast Queensland found that these dogs have more than 50% dingogens or are pure dingoes. There were no “pure” feral domestic dogs of other origins or mixed breeds with few dingogens. It was concluded that the wild dogs of Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast are the descendants of dingoes rather than runaway and abandoned domestic dogs. Investigations of wild dogs in Kosciuszko National Park revealed many mixed breeds, but they all had a relatively high proportion of dingogens.

Detection of half-breeds

There are some external features that distinguish "pure" dingoes from "pure" other domestic dogs. However, this does not have to be the case with mixed breed dogs and, above all, dingo hybrids.

Distinguishing features

Dingo-like domestic dogs and dingo hybrids can usually be differentiated from “pure” dingoes on the basis of their coat color, as there is a greater range of colors and patterns among them. In addition, the typical domestic dog form of barking occurs among mongrels. In the late 1970s it was found that the skull of dingoes from those of other domestic dogs due to alveolar distances along the lower premolar teeth, the width of the upper jaw bone , Bulla volume, and crown width of the upper fangs , basal length of the upper canines , and width of the nasal bones may differ . In order to determine the possibility of the occurrence of mongrels in the wild, mongrels were bred in captivity in the 1970s and early 1980s. The differences in the skull were greater the closer the hybrid was genetically to other domestic dogs. But even a non-dingo proportion of 25% to 12.5% ​​caused noticeable differences in comparison to the eight dingo parents. Unlike dingoes, other feral domestic dogs and dingo hybrids could theoretically come into heat twice a year and tend to have a less seasonal reproductive cycle. However, it is considered unlikely that they would be able to raise both litters in the wild, as this would be very laborious. Successful rearing of two consecutive litters per year in the wild would only be possible under very favorable conditions and so far there is no evidence that this has happened.

In investigations in the early 1990s, mixed breeds in captivity did not show the same reproductive patterns as “pure” dingoes, and many testicular parameters did not show the seasonal differences. They also had larger litters, and some could reproduce year-round. There is no evidence of any differences in terms of length of gestation.

Although mixed breeds can weigh up to 60 kg (allegedly even up to 70 kg), most mixed breeds weigh less than 20 kg in the wild, which is normal for dingoes. Likewise, in cross-breeding experiments between Australian dingoes and other domestic dogs of the same size, no differences in the growth structure of dingoes and mongrels could be identified. Likewise, the average age of wild dogs in Australia is not above what is considered normal for dingoes.

Genetic differentiation is possible, but difficult, as there are few genetic traits that distinguish dingoes from other domestic dogs. A few years ago researchers at the University of New South Wales developed a relatively reliable method with 20 genetic “fingerprints”, in which DNA material from skin and blood samples are used to determine the “purity” of a dingo. If one of these “prints” is found during any of the tests, it indicates that the dog may be a mixed breed and not a “pure” dingo. A group of captive dingoes was used as a reference and was believed to cover the full range of the dingo population. Samples outside of this range were considered mixed race. With increasing development, this method could possibly also be used for hair and faeces samples and provide more accurate results.

Detection problems

With all characteristics that can be used to differentiate dingoes and other domestic dogs, there are, however, some problems that should not be underestimated.

It starts with the fact that there is no real clarity about when a dog is considered a "pure" dingo. There are conflicting views in the literature about how to define a dingo. The following problems often arose:

  • Geographical variations in the allometry of dingo skulls were not taken into account when dingoes from Central Australia were used as the standard for "purity" of dingoes
  • Genetic variations in dingoes in captivity were not taken into account when selecting the genetic markers for "purity"
  • Sample collection methods to genetically identify dingoes are prone to errors in identification (for example, errors in collecting the samples)
  • Microsatellites were used to infer "purity"; however, a review of the microsatellite data indicated that they could only be used to draw conclusions about relationships
  • Recent research shows that chemicals affect gene expression and neural crest development in the early stages of embryonic growth

It was concluded from this that the characteristics of dingoes from geographically isolated areas differ and that different populations may therefore not agree with the current description of a dingo.

Dingo from a wildlife park that is bigger than a "normal" dingo

The second big problem is the fact that so far no identifying feature is 100% reliable. Similarly, results from captive conditions cannot be transferred one-to-one to the situation in the wild, and it is not certain which characteristics will be permanently preserved under the conditions of natural selection. The biology and behavior of dingoes and other wild domestic dogs are believed to be so similar that it is difficult to distinguish between them, and much of the information about dingoes might as well apply to any other wild dog in Australia. Furthermore, living dingoes cannot be reliably differentiated from mongrels in terms of external characteristics, since many mongrels do not differ externally from "pure" dingoes (e.g. mixed breeds of dingoes and Australian cattle dogs ). The color variations, which are considered to be characteristics of the "pure" dingo, can be an obstacle to the identification of mongrels and other domestic dogs if they show the same coloration. In addition, historical reports report black dingoes, but do not mention brown-yellow coloring. This coloring might have been overlooked; if not, it may be another hybrid trait. When dingoes were crossed with other domestic dogs, dogs were born that were outwardly indistinguishable from a dingo, but that even in the third and fourth generations still had two sexual cycles per year. The problem with skull measurements is that they do not differentiate between the various levels of dingo in mongrels, that they are more ineffective the further the mongrel is genetically further away from non-dingoes and that they can only be used on dogs that are already dead. Methods such as x-rays or CT scans of the skull are possible, but impractical. Traces of attacks by dingoes on livestock are also not reliable as identifying features, since the attack methods and their success presumably largely depend on the experience and motivation of the attacker as well as the behavior of the prey.

Genetic tests can theoretically determine whether a certain individual is a mixed breed, “pure” dingo or another house dog, but errors or incorrect results cannot be ruled out. In order to obtain reliable data from genetic tests, suitable and sufficient genetic material from the time before the European settlement would have to be available as reference material, which has not yet been the case (as of 2006). Even with a DNA test, the further away the non-dingo is in its ancestral line, the more difficult it is to determine a mongrel, and it is possible that mongrels have not inherited any of the genes that were assigned to other domestic dogs in the tests. On the other hand, it is known that in some dog breeds, dingoes contributed to their development and that they themselves show corresponding genetic characteristics. In addition, test results can theoretically show results for a "pure" dingo that were not available in the reference group used.

In addition, the different methods used to identify mongrels (DNA, skull features and coat color) can lead to different results that do not have to match. In the aforementioned analyzes of 56 wild dogs in southeast Queensland, there was only 17.9% agreement on DNA, skull features and coat color when determining the "purity" of the dogs. The match between DNA and skull features was the lowest. A previously unknown form of “pure” dingoes was identified (based on DNA and skull features): a dog with white fur and orange spots. This variant was considered to be a single mutation or the product of intermingling with an isolated population of dingoes. A previous study in Queensland found similar inconsistencies between genetic analysis and physical appearance.

Contrary to recurring claims of radical differences in behavior and biology, a single annual oestrus cycle, seasonal oestrus cycles, monogamous behavior, puppy care by the males, regulation of reproduction by ecological and social factors, and howling behavior were also observed among other domestic dogs of various origins. Howling is considered the norm even for all of Australia's wild dogs. Mixed breeds, as well as other domestic dogs, have been identified in fixed pack structures, and domestic dogs roaming freely in Southeast Australia have been observed hunting in groups or looking for food. Free-range dogs in Victoria were typically sighted in pairs (54%) or alone (34%), with packs of three to seven dogs in 12% of sightings. There are also dingoes of above-average size and body weight and cases in which mixed dingoes have been used successfully as working and companion dogs. The Australian Cattle Dog has also been shown to have dingo ancestors. A fundamentally higher aggressiveness of mongrels could not be confirmed by dog ​​owners who worked with mongrels or who researched them, and previous observations and encounters of mongrels in the wild did not reveal any evidence that they were fundamentally more aggressive than "pure" dingoes.

Importance and effects of mixing

Mixing with other domestic dogs is the greatest threat to the preservation of the "pure" dingoes. Genetic examinations, observations and skull measurements over several years strongly indicated that "pure" dingoes are now the exception and some authors suspect that in about 50 years there will be no more "pure" dingoes in the wilds of the continent and there will be it is also no longer possible to obtain them there. The dingo researcher Laurie Corbett assumes that if the mixing rate remains the same, there will be no more “pure” dingoes in Victoria in 20 years. The chairman of the Dingo Conservation Association Barry Oakman was of the opinion in an interview in 2003 that without appropriate measures, the "pure" dingo in 30 years, in New South Wales probably in less than 10 years, will be gone in the wilderness . According to other sources, "pure" dingoes are either close to disappearing or they will be within the next 20 years. It is believed that if the process continues, the increasing number of genes from other domestic dogs will lead to the disappearance of the dingoes as a distinct subspecies on the Australian continent by 2100 and the dog population will then consist of mixed dingo and other feral domestic dogs.

Views on the phenomenon

The fear of mixing dingoes with other domestic dogs has not been a phenomenon in recent years and led as early as 1929 to the Commonwealth of Nations banning the import of German Shepherds to Australia. It was feared that the shepherds (partly because of the old name "Alsatian Wolfhound") were a danger to sheep, would get too close to the dingoes and could thus intermingle. This law was only relaxed in 1972 and repealed in 1974.

Mixing is a problem for some people, but not for others. In the scientific field, there are two main opinions about the process of blending:

  • one should try to get the "pure" dingo
  • one should try to maintain populations of wild dogs, regardless of whether they are mixed breeds or not.

The first is probably the most common position. The point is to maintain the “pure” dingo through strict control of the wild dog population and to protect only “pure” or largely “pure” dingo.

The second position is relatively new and was officially brought up first by Laurie Corbett and Mike J. Daniels. They were of the opinion that one must accept that the dingo has changed and that it is not possible to bring back the "pure" dingo (Corbett previously expressed the view that the ecological role of the dingo is more important than its genetic status ). In addition, historical definitions and the protective measures based on them were viewed as "out of date" due to the changes in the environment caused by humans. Mixing only meant therefore that the dingo today exists in a form other than its ancestors - some researchers use today the term "evolving Dingo" (English. Evolving dingo ). Protection for these dogs should be based on how and where they live, and their cultural and environmental significance, rather than focusing on precise definitions or concerns about "genetic purity". This approach was generally approved, but it was also pointed out that it is very difficult to prove whether and how a living being influences its environment. Essentially, the genetic integrity of the dingoes is already lost due to the intermingling, but the significance of this phenomenon is worth discussing, according to Corbett and Daniels, since the genes come from a domesticated form of the same species.

However, this view is rejected or at least controversially discussed by those who want to receive the “pure” dingo. Here, for example, the molecular biologist Alan Wilton of the University of New South Wales argues that maximizing “genetic purity” is an essential aspect of dingo protection. Mixed breeds would increase the pressure on native species as they would have more litters per year and therefore more young to care for, and some of them would be larger than the average dingo. He also argued that it is not enough, for example, to view a wild dog with some non-dingo content as "pure" dingo if it behaves more or less like it. Wilton believes that the standard needs to be raised and that one should not settle for a substitute when there are pure dingoes. Corbett and Daniels agree that it is practical and desirable to reduce the influence of other domestic dog genes. First, it might be possible to find areas in which the process is slower and so limit it later; second, the populations would evolve according to their natural environment. In addition, mixed breeds and other feral domestic dogs would probably not have the same tourist effect, as they would not meet current expectations of wild dingoes.

To name this process, in addition to terms such as mixing, there is also a dilution of the dingoes or a weakening of the genetic line of the dingoes. spoken. In 2008, the process of mixing was also referred to in the scientific field as a kind of genetic pollution . Critics who generally disapprove of this term argue that it is too valued and unscientific. According to this, this word would indicate that mixed breeds have poorer chances of survival (which does not have to be the case) or that a genetically “pure” gene pool has value in itself.

Instead of being the result of actions and interactions between dingoes and other domestic dogs, this intermingling is presented as a phenomenon that suddenly and inevitably overwhelms a passive and abstract subject (the “pure” gene pool of dingoes). This process has significant ramifications for the dingo's portrayal and its status as a native animal worthy of protection is tied to its genetic status. Dingoes are considered "contaminated" through their contact with other domestic dogs. Just as dingoes are considered out of place on farmland, other domestic dogs do not belong in the wild and it is inappropriate to mix the two. Dingo hybrids are almost always assigned to other wild domestic dogs and have no value as dingoes. In this context, dingoes are considered part of nature and other domestic dogs are considered part of culture. Mixed race are in a space where culture and nature overlap and are not considered a rightful part of nature along with other non-dingoes. Hence, the desire to preserve the "purity" of the dingoes can be viewed as part of the discourse aimed at securing the artificial boundaries of what is considered natural. This point of view is reasonably explained by the fact that it is part of the commitment to the conservation of biological diversity . Since dingoes can be distinguished from other domestic dogs, the line between them is seen as the formation of biological diversity and therefore worthy of protection.

Mixed breeds are seen as a danger to livestock and wild animals and the dingo is apparently seen in a romantic interpretation, which ascribes the undesirable properties only to the mongrel and perhaps tries to portray the dingo as benign and harmless and thus as an acceptable part of nature. Some argue that the boundary between dingoes and their hybrids is meaningless outside of science, as it is determined by criteria which are of no consequence for the dingo and hybrids can perform the same ecological function as the dingo. Rather, it appears that environmentalists are trying to maintain their own categories and views.

Although the view that the dingo is "threatened" by interbreeding does in some cases lead to its legal protection, this protection is thin, since such protection provisions do not apply in settlement areas and areas of agriculture and livestock. Indeed, farmers are using dingo's intermingling as a further justification to continue killing dingoes, emphasizing that there aren't many "pure" dingoes left in the wild, these statements apparently being driven by political and economic considerations.

Control of this process is required due to the precautionary principle and effective control measures are considered necessary. However, this faces not inconsiderable problems. To separate the "pure" dingoes from other dogs is difficult, if at all possible. The costs would be enormous, and even if you wanted to kill all mixed breeds, there is currently no method of testing dingoes as they are found. In addition, control methods usually do not differentiate between dingoes and other domestic dogs. According to Australian National University biologist David Jenkins , little can be done to reverse the process of commingling. Even if you went out and killed every wild dog that didn't look like a dingo, it wouldn't do any good. If one were to search selectively for mongrels when killing wild dogs, this would disrupt the pack structures and thus affect the dogs' reproductive rate. For example, killing the alpha dog would only increase the reproductive rate of the remaining dogs.

Possible changes in behavior and biology

The exact influence of domestic dogs on the social structure of wild dogs in Australia is not documented. However, it is considered likely that the same factors influencing the social organization of dingoes in different areas also influence the social behavior of other feral domestic dogs and dingo hybrids.

In a report on a study from 2002, funded by the Natural Heritage Trust, it was stated that the intermingling ultimately leads to a breakdown of the complex social structure and thus increased reproduction. In addition, it could lead to increased attacks on farm animals due to the inadequate hunting skills of the mixed breeds and thus possibly to an increase in other prey such as red kangaroos and rabbits.

According to a 2003 report on fighting feral dogs in the settlements of southeast Queensland, hybrid dingoes are highly adaptable, living in remote areas up to the suburbs of major cities. They are most active at night, in the early morning and in the late evening and establish territories and grazing areas that are defended by the pack and whose boundaries are marked with urine and feces at certain points. Most packs consist of a breeding pair, the youngsters of the previous year and the current litter. These packs have a social hierarchy, and the dominant dogs are responsible for training young dogs in terms of hunting and social structure. Stable packs do not increase the number of members in the area, but young dogs are thrown out of the pack between December and February and have to look for a new area or a less stable pack. Areas in the settlement area tend to be smaller and accommodate more dogs per area. Usually only the lead dogs breed once a year. The lead bitch actively prevents other bitches from mating, just as the lead male prevents all other males from mating with the lead bitch. When subordinate bitches have young, these are usually killed by the lead bitch. Mixed breeds optimize their energy consumption instead of wasting energy, according to the report. They are both hunters and dusters, which allows them to use a variety of food sources, including compost waste, household trash, run over animals, and pets. The report named these traits for dingoes and mixed dingoes.

In a management plan for wild dogs in Townsville, Queensland, from 2007, it was stated that it cannot be assumed that these dogs can be used as a substitute for dingoes, since the population density is greater than in the period before European colonization, due to better living conditions. They also have the potential for faster population growth due to the ability to reproduce more than once a year. Furthermore, they could be larger and thus have a wider range of prey and more resistant to environmental influences, due to greater efficiency of the metabolism and the accumulation of larger fat reserves.

There is insufficient research into the biology and ecology of dingo hybrids, as most studies are limited to the control of these dogs. However, some changes within the wild dog populations could be detected.

A dog at Uluru with clearly visible descent from other canine lineages

Evidence shows that there is far greater variability in coat colors, skull shapes and body size within the wild dog population than in the period before the arrival of Europeans. For example, within Queensland the different dog populations vary markedly depending on the degree of intermingling, while in Victoria a greater variety of characteristics has created problems in classification and the term "wild dog" is now often used to denote the current dog population. Evidence from southeastern Australian wild dog populations suggested that the regular birth cycle of dingoes is disrupted when high numbers of other domestic dogs and dingo hybrids exist.

According to a five-year study of 2000 wild dogs from all over Australia by Ricky Spencer of the University of Western Sydney , some populations are 80% mixed-breed and this enrichment in genes would have provided a catalyst for the selection and micro-evolution of larger wild dogs. Over the past 40 years the average body mass has increased by 20%, with 40% of wild dogs in the southeast of the continent now weighing more than 17 kg. This size has led to an increased efficiency when hunting the main prey of the wild dogs and models indicate that a pack of wild dogs today consumes almost a quarter more energy than an average pack before 1980. In addition, the dogs, for example, the increased availability kangaroos and livestock also provide the necessary environment to reach these sizes.

On the subject of possible behavioral changes, Ricky Spencer stated that it was not foreseeable how the intermingling would change the behavior of the dingoes; but he assumes that there could be potential problems, since only dingoes are not used to humans. David Jenkins could neither confirm on the basis of data nor personal experience that hybrids are bigger, more aggressive and a danger to the public. According to him, there have been reports of one or two particularly large trapped dogs per year, but most hybrids are close to what is considered normal for dingoes. Jenkins also faced both wild dingoes and mongrels and reported that “something is going on in their brains,” but also that the dogs were more prone to curiosity than aggression. The wild dogs of the Australian Alps are also officially reported to have rarely come into contact with people and also to keep a safe distance when they are chasing people.

In studies on dogs in southeast Australia (which, according to studies, were mostly mixed breeds), the territories were dependent on the food supply, roaming areas were larger than assumed and stable and the dogs were true to their location.

Most attacks by wild dogs on livestock are said to be caused by mixed breeds and not “pure” dingoes, but the influence of wild dogs on cattle farming is very variable, generally low (0-10% losses per year) and the majority of the more vulnerable The sheep industry is located south of the dog fence , where most of the area has no permanent dog populations and many of the remaining populations have a high proportion of mixed breed dogs.

Environmental impact

Red-necked wallaby , one of the prey of dingoes and dingo-hybrids

It is not yet known whether, in the event of the disappearance of “pure” dingoes, the then existing hybrids will change the hunting pressure on other living beings. Likewise, it is not clear what place such hybrids will occupy in Australian ecosystems, and research on the subject is rare. However, it is considered likely that the dynamics of the respective ecosystems will not be disturbed by this. An example are bush rats, which are also considered unlikely to cause problems, as these rodents have been exposed to the influence of the dingoes for thousands of years.

During studies of the effectiveness of baits with sodium fluoroacetate (a deadly poison for canids ) in Kosciuszko National Park in the mid-1980s, roaming areas of similar size were found for dogs there (which were not classified as dingoes) as for dingoes in Southeast Australia. Likewise, these dogs also showed a preference for live prey, which reduced the efficiency of poison baits. In studies of mixed dingoes in the Blue Mountains from March 2005 to April 2006, the main prey of the dogs there consisted of swamp wallabies , red-necked wallabies , eastern gray giant kangaroos , naked-nosed wombats , black kusu and European wild rabbits. The results suggest a large mongrel population that put considerable pressure on the swamp wallabies and controlled outbreaks of the rabbit populations. Officially, all wild dogs in the Australian Alps are considered the main predators, regardless of their origin. According to David Jenkins, studies on wild dogs in Kosciuszko National Park have shown that these dogs account for 75–80% of dingogens and that they are the main predators. Just like “pure” dingoes, these hybrids hunt alone and in a coordinated manner in packs. The same position in the ecosystem is officially reported about the mixed race of the Namadgi National Park , which take on the role of the main predator and thus keep the kangaroo numbers low.

literature

  • Lawrence K. Corbett: The Dingo in Australia and Asia . Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1995, ISBN 0-8014-8264-X .
  • Claudio Sillero-Zubiri, Michael Hoffmann and David W. Macdonald (Eds.): Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs . IUCN - The World Conservation Union, 2004
  • Peter Fleming, Laurie Corbett, Robert Harden and Peter Thomson: Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs . Bureau of Rural Sciences, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Since it is not clear how far the mixing of dingoes and other domestic dogs goes, and there is also no agreement about which dogs are considered pure dingoes and which are not, the term is placed in quotation marks purely in this article.
  2. ↑ Peter Savolainen, Thomas Leitner, Alan N. Wilton, Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith, Joakim Lundeberg (Edited by Colin Renfrew): A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. (PDF) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 2004, accessed May 8, 2009 .
  3. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Fleming, Corbett, Harden and Thomson (2001)
  4. ↑ Jeffrey S. Green and Philip S. Gipson: Feral dogs. (PDF) In: The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. University of Nebraska, September 1994, pp. C76-C82 , accessed April 8, 2009 .
  5. ↑ Dmitrij Ivanovich Bibikow: The wolf . 2nd Edition. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt 1990, ISBN 3-7403-0155-4 .
  6. ↑ a b c Wild Dogs in the Australian Alps. (PDF; 327 kB) The Australian Alps National Parks, 2007, accessed on July 23, 2009 (English).
  7. ↑ Eberhard Trumler : My wild friends, The wild dog species of the world . R. Piper & Co. Verlag, Munich 1981, ISBN 3-492-02483-1 .
  8. ^ Alfred Edmund Brehm : Brehms animal life . General customer of the animal kingdom. The mammals. Bibliographical Institute, Leipzig, Vienna 1900, p. 82-85 .
  9. ↑ a b c d e f g Rosslyn Beeby: Genetic dilution dogs dingoes. The Canberra Times , July 2, 2007, archived from the original April 15, 2009 ; Retrieved December 13, 2008 .
  10. ↑ Merryl Parker: The Cunning Dingo. (PDF; 169 kB) (No longer available online.) Animals & Society Institute, 2007, archived from the original on July 27, 2011 ; Retrieved May 9, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.animalsandsociety.org
  11. ↑ a b c Laurie Corbett: Dingo. (PDF; 9.9 MB) In: Canids: Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources , 2004, accessed April 8, 2009 .
  12. ↑ a b A.E. Newsome and Laurie Corbett: The Identity of the Dingo III. * The Incidence of Dingoes, Dogs and Hybrids and their Coat Colors in Remote and Settled Regions of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 15, 2008 .
  13. ^ TO Wilton, DJ Steward, K. Zafiris: Microsatellite Variation in The Australian Dingo. Oxfordjournals, accessed April 8, 2009 .
  14. ^ PF Woodall, P. Pavlov and KL Twyford: Dingoes in Queensland, Australia: skull dimensions and the identity of wild canids. CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 15, 2008 .
  15. ↑ a b c d e f Steve Davidson: The great dingo dilution. (PDF; 1.2 MB) In: ECOS Magazine 118. CSIRO Publishing, 2004, pp. 10–12 , accessed on April 8, 2009 .
  16. ↑ a b c d e The Dingo in Australia. In: ABC - The Science Show. ABC Radio National, June 23, 2001, archived from the original January 8, 2010 ; Retrieved November 29, 2008 .
  17. ↑ Thomas Riepe: Hundeartige - The reference work for wild and domestic dogs . animal learn Verlag, Bernau 2008, ISBN 978-3-936188-44-8 .
  18. ↑ a b c d Dingo species 'disappearing'. (No longer available online.) The Australian , December 5, 2008, archived from the original on December 8, 2008 ; Retrieved February 1, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.theaustralian.news.com.au
  19. ↑ Dingoes in Queensland distribution and ecology. (PDF; 275 kB) (No longer available online.) Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation, September 2007, archived from the original on May 19, 2009 ; Retrieved April 10, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.dpi.qld.gov.au
  20. ^ Brad V. Purcell and Rob C. Mulley: Dingo / wild dog ecology within the Southern Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. (PDF; 537 kB) In: Proceedings of a workshop on remote monitoring of wild canids and felids. Invasive Animals CRC, pp. 12-13 , accessed April 8, 2009 .
  21. ^ A b John Roach: Does Extinction Loom for Australia's Wild Dingoes? National Geographic News, December 10, 2004, accessed February 10, 2009 .
  22. ↑ Janine Günther, Jens Mohr: The Northern Territory and further routes . 1st edition. 360 °, Gamehl 2007, ISBN 978-3-9809763-2-9 .
  23. ↑ Justyna Zofia Paplinska: CONSTRUCTING A RELIABLE DINGO PURITY TEST 1– DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN PURE AND HYBRID DINGOES. (PDF; 854 kB) (No longer available online.) CSIRO Publishing, 2010, archived from the original on September 4, 2011 ; Retrieved October 31, 2011 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.australianmammals.org.au
  24. ↑ a b How to pick a pure dingo. (PDF; 350 kB) (No longer available online.) In: Beefy and the Beast Issue 15. Department of Natural Resources and Water, September 2006, pp. 5-6 , archived from the original on October 25, 2009 ; Retrieved April 8, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.dpi.qld.gov.au
  25. ^ AE Newsome, Laure Corbett and SM Carpenter: The Identity of the Dingo I. Morphological Discriminants of Dingo and Dog Skulls. CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 15, 2008 .
  26. ^ AE Newsome and Laurie Corbett: The Identity of the Dingo II. * Hybridization with Domestic Dogs in Captivity and in the Wild Australian. CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 15, 2008 .
  27. ↑ PC Catling, Laurie Corbett and AE Newsome: Reproduction in captive and wild dingoes (Canis familiaris dingo) in temperate and arid environments of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 20, 2008 .
  28. ^ PC Catling, Laurie Corbett and M. Westcott: Age Determination in the Dingo and Crossbreeds. CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 18, 2008 .
  29. ^ Brad Purcell, Robert Mulley, Robert Close: Genetic Characterization of Dingoes in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area . In: Invasive Animals CRC (Ed.): 14th Australasian Vertebrate Pest Conference, 10. – 13. June 2008 . 2008, p. 140 ( PDF [accessed April 10, 2009]). PDF ( Memento of the original from May 15, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.feral.org.au
  30. ^ A b Amanda E. Elledge, Luke K.-P. Leung, Lee R. Allen, Karen Firestone, Alan N. Wilton: Assessing the taxonomic status of dingoes Canis familiaris dingo for conservation . In: Mammal Review . tape 36 , no. 2 , 2006, p. 142-156 , doi : 10.1111 / j.1365-2907.2006.00086.x .
  31. ↑ Recognizing wild dog and dingo predation. (PDF) (No longer available online.) Department of Agriculture and Food, archived from the original on August 12, 2008 ; Retrieved April 10, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.agric.wa.gov.au
  32. ^ Alan Wilton: DNA Methods of Assessing Dingo Purity . In: A Symposium on the Dingo . Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Marrickville 2001, ISBN 0-9586085-2-0 .
  33. ↑ a b Andrew Bengsen: Townsville Local Government Area Wild Dog Management Plan. (PDF; 376 kB) (No longer available online.) March 13, 2007, pp. 5–6 , formerly in the original ; accessed on November 15, 2011 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.townsville.qld.gov.au  
  34. ↑ Merryl Ann Parker: Bringing The Dingo Home: Discursive Representations of the Dingo by Aboriginal, Colonial and Contemporary Australians . 2006 ( PDF [accessed April 10, 2009] dissertation). PDF ( Memento of the original of April 24, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / eprints.utas.edu.au
  35. ^ Animals - Dingo Wild Dog (canis lupus familiaris, canis lupus dingo and hybrids). Wildlife-Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, archived from the original on June 29, 2011 ; Retrieved January 12, 2009 .
  36. ^ A b Greg Roberts: Going to the dogs: DNA evidence is damning dingo's future. The Sydney Morning Herald , accessed February 26, 2009 .
  37. ↑ James E. Johannes: The Basenji Annual Estrus: A comparison to other Canids . In: The Basenji . tape 39 , no. 1 , 2003, p. 34–35 ( PDF [accessed April 10, 2009]).
  38. ↑ a b c S. K. Pal: Parental care in free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris . In: Applied Animal Behavior Science . tape 90 , no. 1 , January 2005, p. 31-47 , doi : 10.1016 / j.applanim 2004.08.002 .
  39. ↑ a b c d Günther Bloch: The pizza dogs . Franckh-Kosmos-Verlags-GmbH & Co. KG, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-440-10482-8 .
  40. ^ A b Elizabeth Marshall Thomas: The Secret Life of Dogs . 1st edition. Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Reinbek near Hamburg 1994, ISBN 3-498-04364-1 (English: The Hidden Life of Dogs .).
  41. ↑ Dorit Urd Feddersen-Petersen: Expressive behavior in dogs . Franckh-Kosmos, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-440-09863-9 .
  42. ↑ a b Australia’s dingo dogs face extinction. USA Today , July 10, 2003; accessed March 1, 2009 .
  43. ^ The History of the German Shepherd Dog in Australia. (No longer available online.) The German Shepherd Dog Club of Queensland, archived from the original on April 15, 2009 ; Retrieved March 2, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.gsdcqld.org.au
  44. ↑ c. R. Dickman, Daniel Lunney: Last howl of the dingo: the legislative, ecological and practical issues arising from the kill-or-conserve dilemma . In: A Symposium on the Dingo . Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Marrickville 2001, ISBN 0-9586085-2-0 .
  45. ↑ a b c Mike J. Daniels and Laurie Corbett: Redefining introgressed protected mammals: when is a wildcat a wild cat and a dingo a wild dog? CSIRO Publishing, accessed December 29, 2008 .
  46. ↑ Rachel Nowak: Wildcats and dingoes 'not worth protecting'. New Scientist , August 9, 2003, accessed January 17, 2009 .
  47. ↑ Lisa Clausen: Dingo, Going, Gone? Time Magazine , November 28, 2005, accessed February 15, 2009 .
  48. ↑ Queensland Pest Animal Strategies - Wild dogs / dingo Canis familiaris / Canis familiaris (dingo). (PDF; 454 kB) (No longer available online.) Department of Employment, Economic Development & Industries, September 2002, archived from the original on May 31, 2009 ; Retrieved April 10, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.dpi.qld.gov.au
  49. ^ What's Wrong with the Environmental Movement: an interview with Patrick Moore. The Heartland Institute, archived from the original on June 10, 2011 ; Retrieved January 12, 2009 .
  50. ^ Judith M. Rhymer, Daniel Simberloff: EXTINCTION BY HYBRIDIZATION AND INTROGRESSION. In: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 27, 1996, pp. 83-109, doi: 10.1146 / annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83 .
  51. ^ Karen F. Hytten: Dingo dualisms: Exploring the ambiguous identity of Australian dingoes. (PDF; 867 kB) Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 2009, accessed on November 24, 2011 (English).
  52. ↑ Eldridge et al .: The impact of wild dog control on cattle, native and Introduced herbivores and predators Introduced in central Australia. (PDF; 331 kB) (No longer available online.) Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission, 2002, formerly in the original ; Retrieved November 15, 2011 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.feral.org.au  
  53. ^ Paul Darren Sheil: Solutions for the growing problem of wild dogs in residential areas. (PDF; 212 kB) (No longer available online.) September 2003, archived from the original on March 21, 2012 ; Retrieved November 22, 2011 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.aiam.com.au
  54. ^ A b Brad V. Purcell, Robert Mulley, Robert Close and Jason Flesch: Prey Activity As An Indicator of Prey Selection By a Free-Ranging Population of Wild Canids in New South Wales. (PDF; 1.2 MB) In: Carnivores. Carnivore Ecology & Conservation, November 2006, p. 52 , accessed April 10, 2009 .
  55. ↑ Wild dogs getting bigger, more mixed. ABC News, accessed February 25, 2009 .
  56. ↑ Ricky-John Spencer, Steven J. Lapidge, David Dall, and Simon Humphrys: Bringing out the Mongrel in Australian Dingoes: The Evolution of Wild Dog Body Size. (PDF; 2.3 MB) (No longer available online.) In: 14th Australasian Vertebrate Pest Conference. Inavisive Animals CRC, June 2008, p. 149 , archived from the original on May 15, 2013 ; Retrieved April 10, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.feral.org.au
  57. ↑ Claridge et al .: Satellite tracking of wild dogs in south-eastern mainland Australian forests: Implications for management of a problematic top-order carnivore. Elsevier Ltd, June 21, 2009, accessed November 19, 2011 .
  58. ^ A Management Program for the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) in the Northern Territory of Australia 2006 - 2011. (PDF; 441 kB) (No longer available online.) Northern Territory Government, archived from the original on March 26, 2012 ; Retrieved April 10, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.nretas.nt.gov.au
  59. ^ Western Australian Wild Dog Management Strategy 2005. (PDF) (No longer available online.) Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, August 2005, archived from the original on September 1, 2008 ; Retrieved April 10, 2009 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.agric.wa.gov.au
  60. ↑ Axel Strauss & Katrin Y. Solmsdorff & Roger Pech & Jens Jacob: Rats on the run: removal of alien terrestrial predators affects bush rat behavior. SpringerLink, May 14, 2008, accessed April 10, 2009 .
  61. ↑ JC Mcilroy, RJ Cooper, EJ Gifford, BF Green and KW Newgrain: The Effect on Wild Dogs, Canis-F-Familiaris, of 1080-Poisoning Campaigns in Kosciusko-National-Park. CSIRO Publishing, accessed February 24, 2009 .
  62. ↑ Megan Doherty: Wild dogs 'stalked bushwalkers'. The Canberra Times , archived from the original on April 15, 2009 ; Retrieved February 25, 2009 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on June 18, 2009 .