OVERVIEW: Discover how responsible dog training, wildlife management, and animal-welfare principles can help people, pets, and wildlife coexist safely across America's diverse ecosystems.
The best way to protect dogs, people, and wildlife is to prevent unnecessary encounters, understand what is causing a conflict, and select an effective response that is humane, legal, and practical. This requires more than teaching a dog obedience commands or attempting to drive wild animals away from places where people live.
Professional wildlife management and responsible dog training have much in common. Both require an understanding of animal behavior, careful observation, risk assessment, and an appreciation of how the environment influences an animal's actions. Both must consider the welfare of the animals involved, the interests of people, and the consequences of the proposed intervention.
However, the appropriate management strategy depends on which animals are involved and where the encounter occurs. A dog meeting a black bear in the Appalachian Mountains, a moose in Alaska, an alligator in Florida, or a nesting seabird in Hawaiʻi presents very different circumstances. The species, habitat, season, behavior, and applicable laws all matter.
Is Seeing Wildlife Near Your Home Really a Problem?
Not necessarily. The presence of a wild animal and the existence of a wildlife conflict are two different things.
A fox moving through a suburban neighborhood, a hawk hunting rodents, a deer crossing a lawn, or a turtle traveling toward a pond may simply be going about its normal activities. Their presence alone does not establish that people or their pets are in danger, or that wildlife management is necessary.
The situation changes when wildlife repeatedly attacks pets, threatens people, causes significant property damage, or creates a substantial public-health concern. Even then, understanding the circumstances is essential because different problems may require entirely different solutions.
The same distinction applies to domestic dogs. A dog that watches a rabbit, barks at a coyote, or becomes excited when birds fly past is not necessarily exhibiting a serious behavioral problem. Before reaching that conclusion, I would want to know what the dog did, what preceded its behavior, and whether anyone was placed at risk.
Did the dog merely observe the animal, attempt to chase it, become frightened, or initiate a physical attack? Was it restrained? Did it respond when the owner increased the distance? These observations provide more useful information than simply labeling the dog aggressive, reactive, territorial, or disobedient.
A behavior label is not an explanation of the behavior.
What Can Dog Owners Learn From Professional Wildlife Management?
Professional wildlife management provides a useful framework for making decisions about animals, including domestic dogs.
An established wildlife-management guide developed in New York State identifies six considerations: safety, ecological consequences, practicality, humane treatment, legality, and public acceptance. More recent international guidance emphasizes demonstrated harm, measurable outcomes, community participation, and long-term prevention (Dubois et al., 2017; IUCN, 2023).
These principles apply across geographical regions, although the particular animals, management methods, and legal requirements differ.
Comparing Wildlife and Domestic Dog Management
Principle | Wildlife management | Domestic dog management |
Assessment | Identify species, actual harm, and circumstances. | Observe behavior, context, and relevant history. |
Prevention | Reduce attractants and unwanted access. | Use supervision, restraint, and environmental controls. |
Intervention | Select species-specific management methods. | Select methods appropriate to the individual dog. |
Welfare | Minimize unnecessary suffering and ecological harm. | Protect physical and emotional well-being. |
Legal duties | Follow wildlife and conservation laws. | Follow animal-control and owner-responsibility laws. |
Evaluation | Measure whether damage and risk decrease. | Measure behavioral improvement, safety, and welfare. |
An important principle connects all six considerations: the objective should be to solve an identifiable problem rather than suppress everything someone considers undesirable.
For example, a wildlife professional might recommend securing a chicken enclosure rather than attempting to eliminate every fox or coyote in the surrounding area. A dog owner whose pet repeatedly chases wildlife might begin with physical restraint, changing the walking route, and developing reliable responses to instructions.
In both situations, the first priority is reducing the circumstances that make an unwanted encounter likely.
Why Does the Type of Animal Matter?
Different groups of animals have very different biology, natural histories, ecological roles, and interactions with domestic dogs.
Biologists use the term taxa, the plural of taxon, to refer to named groups of organisms. Mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects are familiar examples of major animal groups. All belong to the domain Eukaryota, but they do not all occupy the same. Mammals, birds, amphibians, and the animals traditionally called reptiles are vertebrates within the phylum Chordata. Insects belong to the phylum Arthropoda, along with spiders, ticks, scorpions, and crustaceans, although those other arthropods are not insects. For practical wildlife-management purposes, however, it remains useful to discuss birds and non-avian reptiles separately.
The reason for making these distinctions is not merely academic. The risks associated with different animal taxa can be fundamentally different.
Animal Taxa and Common Management Concerns
Animal group | Examples | Important concerns |
Mammals | Bears, wolves, deer, moose, raccoons, coyotes | Predation, defensive behavior, disease, feeding, territorial conflicts |
Birds | Raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds | Nesting disturbance, predation, habitat protection |
Non-avian reptiles | Snakes, turtles, tortoises, alligators, lizards | Venom, predation, defensive bites, habitat disturbance |
Amphibians | Frogs, toads, salamanders, newts | Sensitive habitats, disturbance, disease transmission, toxic secretions in some species |
Insects | Bees, wasps, butterflies, beetles, mosquitoes | Stings, pollination, habitat protection, disease transmission by some species |
Other arthropods | Ticks, spiders, scorpions | Bites, stings, parasites, and region-specific health concerns |
These categories describe groups of animals, not uniform behavioral types. A black bear and a deer are both mammals, but that does not mean people should respond to them in the same way. Similarly, a rattlesnake, a desert tortoise, and an alligator are all non-avian reptiles, yet the hazards and appropriate responses differ enormously.
The management problem must therefore be defined at the level of the relevant species and circumstances, not simply by assigning an animal to a broad taxonomic group.
How Do Wildlife Encounters Differ Across the United States?
The United States contains ecosystems ranging from Arctic tundra and alpine mountains to temperate forests, grasslands, deserts, tropical wetlands, coastal habitats, and Pacific islands. Every state has its own combination of wildlife, seasonal conditions, human development, and conservation priorities.
This diversity makes a single national wildlife-response procedure impractical. The underlying principles may be consistent, but the appropriate applications differ.
Wildlife Encounters Across American Ecosystems
Ecosystem or region | Representative wildlife | Important dog-management concerns |
Alaska and northern wilderness | Brown bears, black bears, moose, wolves | Dangerous close encounters, dogs provoking defensive responses |
Rocky Mountains | Elk, moose, bighorn sheep, bears, mountain lions | Wildlife pursuit, defensive encounters, seasonal habitat protection |
Pacific Northwest forests | Black bears, deer, cougars, amphibians | Predator encounters, wildlife disturbance, sensitive stream habitats |
Pacific Coast beaches | Seals, sea lions, shorebirds | Protected marine wildlife, nesting and resting areas |
Southwestern deserts | Coyotes, rattlesnakes, tortoises, lizards | Venomous snakes, vulnerable reptiles, predators, heat |
Great Plains and prairies | Bison, pronghorn, prairie dogs, grassland birds | Pursuit, dangerous ungulate encounters, ground-nesting birds |
Great Lakes and northern forests | Wolves, deer, black bears, salamanders | Wildlife pursuit, predator encounters, wetland and woodland protection |
Northeastern forests and coasts | Black bears, foxes, deer, nesting shorebirds | Food attractants, wildlife disturbance, nesting-area restrictions |
Appalachian Mountains | Black bears, deer, snakes, salamanders | Food conditioning, close encounters, stream and forest habitat protection |
Southeastern forests and wetlands | Alligators, copperheads, cottonmouths, amphibians | Water-edge hazards, venomous snakes, sensitive wetlands |
Florida Everglades and coastal wetlands | Alligators, crocodiles, wading birds, turtles | Predation risks to pets, restricted access, wildlife disturbance |
Hawaiian Islands | Nēnē, seabirds, Hawaiian monk seals, native forest birds | Endemic species, introduced predators, disease, protected habitats |
These examples are illustrative, not exhaustive distributions. Many species occupy several regions, and wildlife communities can change considerably within the same state.
A dog owner in Maine may need to consider black bears, deer, and nesting shorebirds. Someone in Colorado may be more concerned about moose or elk during a mountain hike. In Kansas, the concern could involve grassland birds or livestock, while in Louisiana it may involve alligators and other wetland wildlife.
Alaska and Hawaiʻi present additional circumstances that cannot be represented adequately by advice developed for the contiguous United States. Alaska's large mammals and remote landscapes create different practical risks, while Hawaiʻi's endemic wildlife and conservation requirements make disturbance by domestic animals particularly important.
The lesson is that responsible management requires familiarity with the wildlife present in the area, rather than relying on a generic list of supposedly dangerous animals.
Can Dogs Harm Wildlife Even When They Don't Attack?
Yes. Dogs can interfere with wildlife without making physical contact.
Domestic dogs may disrupt feeding, resting, breeding, or nesting activities. Their presence can cause wildlife to flee, move away from preferred habitat, or temporarily change its behavior. Free-roaming dogs may also injure or kill wildlife, compete with other species, and contribute to disease transmission.
Hughes and Macdonald (2013) reviewed interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife, identifying several ecological concerns, including predation, disturbance, disease transmission, and hybridization.
An experiment by Banks and Bryant (2007) examined dog walking and woodland birds. Compared with control conditions without walkers, researchers recorded 41% fewer individual birds and 35% fewer bird species following dog walking.
The experiment was conducted in Australian woodland, and the measurements concerned short-term bird responses. The figures should not be treated as national estimates of the effects of dog walking in American ecosystems. Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate that the presence of dogs can disturb wildlife even without physical attacks.
Similar concerns help explain restrictions on dogs in nesting areas, wildlife refuges, and sensitive habitats throughout the United States.
On Atlantic and Gulf Coast beaches, for example, dogs may disturb shorebirds that depend on undisturbed areas for feeding and reproduction. In Hawaiʻi, loose dogs can threaten native birds such as the nēnē and protected marine mammals, including Hawaiian monk seals.
Even where leashed dogs are permitted, owners have a responsibility to avoid causing unnecessary disturbance.
What About Amphibians, Reptiles, Insects, and Other Small Animals?
These animals deserve consideration even when they do not present an obvious threat to people or dogs.
A dog wandering into a seasonal woodland pool may disturb habitat used by salamanders, frogs, and other organisms. The Michigan Vernal Pools Partnership recommends keeping pets out of vernal pools except where authorized monitoring activities are being conducted. Such wetlands can provide important breeding habitat and require protection from unnecessary disturbance.
Desert tortoises present a different concern. These animals are slow-moving, and dogs may injure or disturb them even without deliberate pursuit. National Park Service guidance for the Mojave Desert emphasizes avoiding unnecessary handling and protecting tortoises and their burrows.
Venomous snakes require another type of response. The primary goal is to prevent contact, not to have the dog investigate or challenge the animal. Snakebite is a veterinary emergency, and owners should not attempt to handle or kill a snake to identify it.
Insects and other arthropods raise both conservation and animal-health questions. Bees and butterflies provide important pollination services, while wasps, beetles, and many other insects contribute to ecological processes. Broad attempts to eliminate insects can produce unintended effects on non-target animals and the environment.
In contrast, mosquitoes and ticks can present disease risks to people and pets. Ticks are arachnids rather than insects, but they are often considered alongside insects in practical pest-management discussions. The appropriate response may involve veterinary parasite prevention, habitat management, reducing exposure, and carefully selected pest-control measures.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends integrated pest management to address unacceptable pest damage while minimizing risks to people, property, and pollinators.
There is no contradiction in protecting beneficial insects while also managing organisms that create identifiable health or safety problems. The distinction depends on the organism, the harm involved, and the consequences of the proposed response.
What Should Dog Owners Do During Wildlife Encounters?
The appropriate response depends on the animal's identity, behavior, location, and distance. There is no universal rule that works safely for every species.
For example, wildlife authorities may recommend discouraging a coyote that has begun approaching people in a residential area. That advice should not be transferred automatically to a bear, moose, or alligator. Approaching, cornering, or provoking those animals may create an emergency that did not previously exist.
The following examples illustrate the differences.
Practical Wildlife Encounter Guide
Wildlife | General preventive response | Important precaution |
Bears | Keep dogs close, remain alert, and follow species- and situation-specific bear safety guidance. | Do not let dogs chase or approach bears. |
Moose, elk, or bison | Maintain substantial distance and move away from the animal. | Large mammals may injure dogs or people when threatened. |
Coyotes | Secure pets, maintain distance, and remove food attractants. | Do not allow pets to pursue coyotes. |
Alligators or crocodiles | Keep pets away from shorelines and the animals themselves. | Never allow dogs to approach the water's edge near crocodilians. |
Venomous snakes | Stop the dog from approaching and move away carefully. | Do not handle or provoke the snake. |
Turtles or tortoises | Prevent investigation, chasing, or physical contact. | Do not relocate protected wildlife without authorization. |
Nesting birds | Remain on authorized routes and observe closure boundaries. | Avoid disturbing nests, chicks, or feeding areas. |
Marine mammals | Keep dogs well away from resting or breeding animals. | Do not permit contact, harassment, or pursuit. |
Amphibians | Prevent dogs from entering sensitive breeding or wetland areas. | Avoid disturbing animals or their habitats. |
Bees, wasps, ticks, and similar hazards | Avoid nests or concentrations of stinging animals; use appropriate parasite prevention. | Seek veterinary care for severe reactions, poisoning, or concerning exposure. |
These recommendations concern prevention and ordinary encounters. They are not complete emergency procedures for situations involving an active attack.
Wildlife agencies publish detailed advice for particular species, and those recommendations should be consulted before traveling into habitats where dangerous encounters are possible.
For example, National Park Service guidance warns that dogs can complicate bear encounters. Everglades National Park cautions that alligators and crocodiles may regard small dogs as prey, while authorities in Hawaiʻi emphasize keeping dogs away from protected seals and seabirds.
A reasonable precaution in one ecosystem can be dangerous or legally prohibited in another.
What Should We Teach Dogs That Regularly Encounter Wildlife?
Dogs that routinely visit wildlife habitats should be trained proficiently to exercise practical skills that allow their owners to maintain control without creating unnecessary confrontations.
Useful skills include walking on a loose leash, responding to their names, turning away with their owners, stopping on command, leaving animals alone, and returning when called. Training should begin under circumstances in which the dog can respond successfully before progressing to more distracting environments.
However, a dog that reliably performs a command in one setting may respond very differently when a rabbit runs across a trail, a deer suddenly emerges from vegetation, or a large wild animal appears nearby.
The circumstances have changed. Depending on the dog and the situation, the response may involve curiosity, pursuit, excitement, fear, or several motivations operating together.
I would not assume that every dog that pulls toward wildlife is demonstrating the same behavioral problem, or that one training exercise will solve every situation.
This also explains why even a dog with a good recall should not automatically be permitted to roam freely in wildlife habitat. Physical restraint, appropriate distance, supervision, and route selection remain important safeguards.
Training is another layer of protection, not a substitute for responsible management.
Why Can't We Manage Wild Animals Exactly Like Domestic Dogs?
Wild animals and domestic dogs have different relationships with people, which changes what management can reasonably accomplish.
Most companion dogs live under human supervision. Their owners provide food, shelter, veterinary care, exercise, and many opportunities for learning. Owners can control numerous conditions associated with their dogs' behavior.
Wild animals generally must obtain their own resources, avoid threats, reproduce, and survive independently. Wildlife managers therefore often focus on habitats, attractants, access to particular locations, and the probability of dangerous encounters rather than attempting to establish ongoing obedience relationships with individual animals.
Wildlife deterrence sometimes includes hazing or aversive conditioning intended to discourage animals from approaching populated areas. Depending on the species and circumstances, this may be an appropriate component of an authorized wildlife-management program. Always check with the authorities as to what you are allowed to do and what you are prohibited from doing. Penalties can range from fines up to imprisonment.
Many dogs can learn to disengage from wildlife, turn toward its owner, and follow instructions without being forced into frightening encounters. Some, not so much.
In either setting, an intervention should be evaluated by its actual effects on behavior, safety, and welfare rather than by whether it produces an immediate visible response.
Why Isn't Removing Wildlife Always the Best Solution?
Removing a wild animal may fail to correct the conditions that attracted it.
Consider a residential neighborhood with unsecured garbage, pet food left outdoors, and small pets roaming unattended. Removing one coyote or raccoon does not eliminate those opportunities. Other animals may encounter the same resources, and the conflict may continue.
Relocation also creates welfare and ecological concerns. Captured animals may experience substantial stress, struggle to find food and shelter in unfamiliar territory, encounter established competitors (which can be fatal), or attempt to return to their original homes.
The consequences depend on the species and circumstances. Moving a reptile, a mammal, or an amphibian cannot be treated as the same biological problem merely because all three are wild animals.
Nor does this mean that lethal wildlife control can never be justified. Serious threats to human safety, disease-control requirements, conservation needs, or persistent significant damage may sometimes require interventions that injure or kill an animal. Know the self-defense laws where you live and where you plan on being.
Such decisions require legal authority, competent assessment, consideration of reasonable alternatives, and evaluation of the likely consequences.
Dubois and colleagues (2017) proposed that wildlife control should be based on demonstrated harms, pursue measurable outcomes, and minimize animal suffering. Their framework also emphasizes changing human practices that contribute to conflicts whenever possible.
A comparable principle applies when addressing serious behavioral problems in domestic dogs. The professional must examine what actually occurred, the severity of any harm, the circumstances of the incidents, relevant medical and behavioral factors, and the available management options.
The objective should be an appropriate decision supported by evidence, not an automatic response based on a label.
What Does Humane Animal Management Actually Mean?
Humane management involves more than keeping an animal alive or avoiding visible physical injury. It requires consideration of physical health, the animal's environment, behavioral opportunities, and mental well-being.
The Five Domains Model of animal welfare examines nutrition, physical environment, health, behavioral interactions, and mental state (Mellor et al., 2020). These welfare domains are a framework for evaluating well-being and should not be confused with biological taxonomic domains.
The distinction matters because an intervention can protect an animal from one danger while creating another.
Relocating wildlife may eliminate an immediate conflict with people while exposing the animal to stress or survival difficulties. Repeatedly forcing a frightened dog into close encounters with wildlife may leave it physically uninjured while causing substantial distress.
Animal welfare also involves competing interests. Allowing a dog to chase wildlife may provide an opportunity for a highly motivating activity, but that does not justify the injury or disturbance imposed on other animals.
Conversely, protecting wildlife does not justify ignoring genuine risks to domestic pets or people.
The appropriate question is not simply whether an intervention is lethal or nonlethal, pleasant or unpleasant, or popular or unpopular. We should consider what it actually accomplishes, what suffering it causes or prevents, whether an effective alternative is available, and what happens afterward.
How Can People and Dogs Coexist With Wildlife Legally Throughout the United States?
Coexistence requires recognizing that wildlife and domestic animals are subject to different legal frameworks. Those requirements vary among states, federal lands, municipalities, tribal jurisdictions, and particular protected areas.
Federal protections may apply to certain migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, and other wildlife. State governments regulate additional species and activities, including hunting, trapping, possession, relocation, and management of animals causing damage.
Domestic dogs are subject to separate requirements involving licensing, vaccination, restraint, animal control, and owner responsibility. State laws and local ordinances may also address dogs pursuing or injuring wildlife.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects listed birds against unauthorized take, which includes specified activities such as killing or capturing. The Endangered Species Act provides additional protection for listed species, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act regulates prohibited taking and harassment of marine mammals.
However, the exact restrictions depend on the species, the activity, and the applicable law. Owners should not assume that every interaction with wildlife is prohibited, or that all species have identical protections.
Rules for bringing dogs onto public lands also vary considerably.
Rocky Mountain National Park, for example, prohibits pets on its hiking trails, tundra, and meadows. Yellowstone National Park limits pets to specified developed areas. Acadia National Park permits leashed dogs on many trails but restricts access to certain routes and other protected locations.
National forests, state parks, wildlife refuges, municipal parks, beaches, and private lands may have different requirements.
A person who legally walks a dog on a trail in one state cannot assume that the same activity is permitted in a wildlife refuge or national park elsewhere.
Property ownership likewise does not automatically authorize the capture, relocation, or killing of any wild animal that enters the property. Wildlife protections and permitted management activities must be verified for the location and species involved.
The most reliable approach is to check current regulations with the appropriate land manager and state wildlife agency before entering a protected area or attempting a wildlife-management intervention.
How Can Communities Make Coexistence Work?
Individual dog owners play an important role in preventing wildlife conflicts, but long-term solutions frequently require cooperation among residents, municipalities, wildlife agencies, veterinarians, conservation organizations, land managers, and animal-control professionals.
An effective community approach begins with identifying actual sources of conflict. These may include unsecured garbage, outdoor pet food, vulnerable livestock, free-roaming dogs and cats, poorly maintained fencing, or residential development that creates frequent encounters along wildlife travel routes.
The appropriate response may involve improving enclosures, removing attractants, changing access to sensitive habitat, enforcing reasonable animal-control requirements, or educating residents about the wildlife in their area.
Different communities will have different priorities. An Alaskan community may focus on safe food storage and avoiding bear or moose conflicts. A coastal community may emphasize protecting seabird colonies or marine mammals. A neighborhood near seasonal wetlands may need to protect amphibian breeding habitat, while an agricultural region may be more concerned with livestock protection and predator conflicts.
The important point is that successful coexistence should be measured through meaningful outcomes. Fewer injuries, fewer dangerous encounters, less property damage, reduced disturbance of vulnerable wildlife, and improved animal welfare provide better measures than simply counting every wildlife sighting as a problem.
Public acceptance matters, but wildlife decisions should not be reduced to a popularity contest. Scientific evidence, animal welfare, legal obligations, property rights, and public safety all deserve consideration.
When Is Professional Assessment Necessary?
Professional assessment becomes important when wildlife encounters repeatedly create danger, when dogs attempt to chase or attack wild animals, when serious fear interferes with safe handling, or when problems continue despite reasonable preventive measures.
Dog owners may need a veterinarian or qualified behavior/ training professional to evaluate health, behavior, and training needs. Wildlife-related conflicts may require a state wildlife agency, land manager, public-health authority, or appropriately authorized wildlife professional.
The first task should be establishing what is occurring, what can reasonably be inferred from the evidence, and what remains unknown. Only then can competing management options be evaluated responsibly.
I have successfully trained many dogs to be safe around various wildlife habitats, but training must be tempered with common sense and adherence to the law.
Can People, Dogs, and Wildlife Really Live Together?
Yes, although coexistence does not mean that every animal must tolerate direct contact with every other animal, or that every conflict can be eliminated without difficult decisions.
Responsible dog training and effective wildlife management share an essential principle: understand the problem before attempting to solve it. Identify the circumstances that create danger, prevent unnecessary encounters, protect the welfare of the animals involved, and intervene when the evidence and circumstances justify doing so.
A dog does not need to approach a wild animal to enjoy the outdoors. A wild animal does not need to be removed simply because someone has seen it. The practical requirements may differ between a mountain forest, prairie, desert, wetland, or coastal habitat, but the responsibility to make informed decisions remains the same.
Sometimes the most successful animal-management decision is to arrange the environment and our own behavior so that a confrontation never occurs.
Glossary
Animal welfare: The physical and mental well-being of an animal, including its health, environment, behavioral opportunities, and experiences.
Arthropod: An invertebrate belonging to the phylum Arthropoda, which includes insects, spiders, ticks, scorpions, and crustaceans.
Attractant: Food, water, shelter, or another resource that encourages an animal to enter or remain in an area.
Clade: An evolutionary group consisting of a common ancestor and all its descendants.
Coexistence: People and wildlife sharing a landscape while managing risks and tolerating an appropriate level of wildlife presence.
Exclusion: Preventing animals from accessing a location or resource through barriers or other appropriate methods.
Habituation: A reduction in an animal's response to a repeatedly encountered stimulus that has no significant consequence.
Hazing: A wildlife-management technique intended to discourage animals from approaching or remaining in a particular location through species-appropriate, legally authorized deterrence.
Integrated pest management: An approach to managing organisms that cause damage through monitoring, prevention, environmental management, and selective interventions while minimizing unnecessary harm.
Integrated wildlife damage management: A management strategy combining assessment, prevention, environmental modification, and appropriate interventions while considering safety, ecological consequences, animal welfare, and legal requirements.
Paraphyletic group: A group that includes a common ancestor but excludes some of its descendants, such as the traditional grouping of reptiles when birds are excluded.
Taxon (plural: taxa): A named biological group at any level of classification, such as a species, genus, family, class, or phylum.
Translocation: The intentional movement of an organism from one location to another, which can carry ecological, health, and welfare consequences.
Scholarly Bibliography
Banks, P. B., & Bryant, J. V. (2007). Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biology Letters, 3(6), 611–613. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0374
Dubois, S., Fenwick, N., Ryan, E. A., et al. (2017). International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology, 31(4), 753–760. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12896
Eklund, A., LĂłpez-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G., & Frank, J. (2017). Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific Reports, 7, 2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w
Hughes, J., & Macdonald, D. W. (2013). A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biological Conservation, 157, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.005
International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2023). IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (1st ed.). IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/YGIK2927
Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., et al. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870
Miller, S. G., Knight, R. L., & Miller, C. K. (2001). Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(1), 124–132.
Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., Pastur, S., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023
Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs: A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004
Government, Conservation, and Professional References
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2021). Humane dog training position statement.https://avsab.org/resources/position-statements/
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Bird disturbance and wildlife viewing.https://myfwc.com/viewing/how/bird-disturbance/
Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources. Nēnē: Hawaiian goose.https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/wildlife/birds/nene/
Michigan Vernal Pools Partnership. Management and protection recommendations.https://www.mivernalpools.com/menus/vp-management-and-protection-recommendations.html
National Park Service. Rocky Mountain National Park: Pets. https://home.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/pets.htm
National Park Service. Everglades National Park: Safety. https://www.nps.gov/ever/planyourvisit/safety.htm
National Park Service. Mojave National Preserve: Desert tortoise. https://www.nps.gov/moja/learn/nature/desert-tortoise.htm
National Park Service. Yellowstone National Park: Pets. https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/pets.htm
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2004). Best practices for nuisance wildlife control operators in New York State. Historical professional training guidance.
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. Insect Zoo: Taxonomic classification.https://naturalhistory.si.edu/visit/accessibility/audio-and-visual-description/insect-zoo-audio-description-tour
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing ticks on pets.https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/prevention/preventing-ticks-on-pets.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Using integrated pest management for pollinators.https://www.fws.gov/page/pollinators-integrated-pest-management
No comments:
Post a Comment