Free-ranging dogs (Canis familiaris) significantly threaten wildlife, including endangered species. Although this problem resembles threats from other invasive animals, managing roaming dogs is even more fraught due to their close association with humans. Here we use interviews (n = 166) to document patterns of dog ownership and care and to measure public attitudes toward management strategies to control free-roaming dogs that threaten wildlife in rural areas of southern Chile. We compare attitudes toward lethal control and fines in scenarios where dogs attack livestock, children or wild animals or enter protected areas. We also test for variation in attitudes according to gender, age, education and proximity to urban areas. Most respondents (98.1%) opposed lethal control for at least one scenario and they were more likely to accept killing dogs that attacked sheep than those attacking wildlife. Similarly, support for fines was higher when dogs attacked livestock or people versus wild animals. Respondents consistently favored fining the owner over eliminating the problem dog. When asked about their management preferences, many respondents indicated that the movement of problem dogs-including to a lesser extent those threatening wildlife-should be restricted. However, in practice most dog-owners allowed one or more of their dogs to move freely at least part of the time. Finally, the wildlife species of concern mattered, e.g. 40% thought no action was necessary when dogs attack foxes, but this dropped to 12% for pudu (a small deer). In sum, participants had significantly more concern for livestock and human safety than for wildlife protection. We close by discussing management and policy implications.
Keywords: Canis familiaris; Human dimensions; Human-wildlife conflict; Invasive species; Perceptions.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.