| Summary: | The studies of Allen (2011) and Allen et al. (2011) recently examined the methodology underpinning claims that dingoes provide net benefits to biodiversity by suppressing foxes and cats. They found most studies to have design flaws and/or observational methods that preclude valid interpretations from the data, describing most of the current literature as ‘wild dogma’. In this short supplement, we briefly highlight the roles and implications of wild dogma for wild dog management in Australia. We discuss nomenclature, and the influence that unreliable science can have on policy and practice changes related to apex predator management [Current Zoology 57 (6): 737–740, 2011].
|
|---|
