Who let the dog out? Dog owner attitudes and economics regulate the potential negative impact of domestic dogs on wildlife in a reserve network

Abstract

Abstract Many domestic animals have a profound impact on endangered species through complex interactions and spillover effects in and between coupled human and natural systems. A thorough understanding of the driving forces of human decisions regarding how domestic animals are kept is therefore critical to promote the synergy of human livelihood and biodiversity conservation. Working in the Qinling Mountains of China, we conducted a multidisciplinary study using a structural equation model (SEM) to link households' demographic and economic conditions, peoples attitudes and activities with their decisions, and further investigated how such process influences the potential negative impact of free‐ranging dogs on wildlife. Among 139 blood and saliva samples collected from dogs that were owned by local villagers but allowed to roam freely, 33.3% were positive for at least one of three viral infections, including canine distemper (28.2%), canine parvovirus (25.6%), and rabies virus prevalence (10.3%). SEM modeling revealed that human activity (β = 0.27, p = .012) has significantly increased dogs' potential negative impacts on wildlife by increasing the number of dogs and their direct contact with wildlife, as well as their larger movement range. Conversely, improvement in demographic and economic conditions (β = −0.22, p = .011) and human attitudes (β = −0.51, p = .013) suppresses the influence of free roaming dogs on wildlife. Meanwhile, livelihoods dependent on natural resources increased the likelihood of owners having dog practice that may negatively impact wildlife (β = 0.54, p < .001), without improving the economic conditions of the residents (β = −0.26, p < .001). Based on the above results, we recommend a program that combines educational and conservation efforts to encourages local residents in more responsible dog ownership and recommend reserve managers provide financial incentives to mitigate human‐wildlife conflicts.

Keywords

• canine disease
• conservation planning
• coupled human and natural systems
• human impact