Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Overview
- The respondents’ views about general risk of extinction of wildlife and their degree of concern about this (3 questions).
- The risks to wildlife of various anthropogenic and natural occurrences (7 questions).
- The acceptability of various possible strategies for reducing or preventing wild dog and cat predation on wildlife (7 questions).
- The importance of various options for controlling domesticated (owned) dogs and cats (11 questions).
2.2. Enrolment of Participants
2.3. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Description of Respondents
3.2. Risk of Extinction of Wildlife
3.3. Risks to Wildlife of Various Anthropogenic and Natural Occurrences
3.4. Acceptability of Various Strategies for Reducing or Preventing Wild Dog and Cat Predation on Wildlife
3.5. Importance of Various Options for Controlling Domestic (Owned) Dog and Cats
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Medina, F.; Nogales, M.; Farnworth, M.; Bonnaud, E. Human-cat relationships in an oceanic reserve: The case of La Palma Island, Canary archipielago. J. Nat. Conserv. 2016, 38, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twardek, W.; Peiman, K.; Gallagher, A.; Cooke, S. Fido, fluffy, and wildlife conservation: The environmental consequences of domesticated animals. Environ. Rev. 2017, 25, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hodgson, K.; Barton, K.; Darling, M.; Antao, V.; Kim, F.; Monavvari, A. Pets’ impacts on your patients’ health: Leveraging benefits and mitigating risks. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2015, 28, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, N.; Signal, T. Empathy and attitutes to animals. Anthrozoös 2005, 18, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Walsh, F. Human-animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Fam. Process. 2009, 48, 462–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, E. Cats, feral cat. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mammals: The National Photographic Index of Australian Wildlife; Strahan, R., Ed.; Collins, Angus & Robertson Publishers: Sydney, Australia, 1983; pp. 488–489. [Google Scholar]
- Newsome, A. Dingo and fox, dingo. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mammals: The National Photographic Index of Australian Wildlife; Strahan, R., Ed.; Collins, Angus & Robertson Publishers: Sydney, Australia, 1983; pp. 482–485. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, J.; Paterson, M. Pets, pests and humane humans. In Handbook on Space, Place and Law; Bartel, R., Carter, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, In Press.
- Acosta-Jamett, G.; Cunningham, A.; Bronsvoort, B.; Cleaveland, S. Serosurvey of canine distemper virus and canine parvovirus in wild canids and domestic dogs at the rural interface in the Coquimbo Region, Chile. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2015, 61, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleaveland, S.; Laurenson, M.; Taylor, L. Diseases of humans and their domestic mammals: Pathogen chatacteristics, host range and the risk of emergence. Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 2001, 356, 991–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnington, C.; Gaston, K.; Evans, K. Fearing the feline: Domestic cats reduce avian fecundity through trait-mediated indirec effects that increase nest predation by other species. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 50, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsons, A.; Bland, C.; Forrester, T.; Baker-Whatton, M.; Schuttler, S.; McShea, W.; Costello, R.; Kays, R. The ecological impact of dogs on wildlife in protected areas in Eastern North America. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 23, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vanak, A.; Gompper, M. Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: Their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal. Rev. 2009, 39, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villatoro, F.; Naugthon-Treves, L.; Sepúlveda, M.; Stowhas, P.; Mardones, F.; Silva-Rodríguez, E. When ree-ranging dogs threaten wildlife: Public attitutes toward managment strategies in southern Chile. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lowe, S.; Browne, M.; Boudjelas, S.; De Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasice Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database; The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN): Auckland, New Zeland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Doherty, T.; Dickman, C.; Johnson, C.; Legge, S.; Ritchie, E.; Woinarski, J. Impacts and management of feral cants Felis catus in Australia. Mammal. Rev. 2017, 47, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, S. Impact of a subsidized spay neuter clinic on impoundments and euthanasia in a community shelter and on service and complaint calls to animal control. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2012, 15, 53–69. [Google Scholar]
- Loyd, K.; Miller, C. Factors related to preferences for Trap-Neuter-Release management of Feral Cats among Illinois Homeowners. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borthwick, F. Governing pets and their humans: Dogs and comanion animals in New South Wales. Griffith Law Rev. 2009, 18, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilsdorf, J.; Hygnstrom, S.; VerCauteren, K. Use of frightening devices in wildlife damage management. Integr. Pest. Manag. Rev. 2002, 7, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, T.; Dickman, C.; Alistair, G.; Newsome, T.; Nimmo, D.; Ritchie, E.; Vanak, A.; Wirsing, A. The global impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 210, 56–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, R.A.; Baquero, O.S.; Guilloux, A.G.A.; Moretti, C.F.; De Lucca, T.; Rodrigues, R.C.A.; Castagna, C.L.; Presotto, D.; Kronitzky, Y.C.; Grisi-Filho, J.H.H.; et al. Dog and cat management through sterilization: Implications for population dynamics and veterinary public policies. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 122, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, T.; Ritchie, E. Stop jumping the gun: A call for evidence-based invasive predator management. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oppel, S.; Bruns, F.; Vickery, J.; George, K.; Ellik, G.; Dennis, L.; Hilmman, J. Habitat-specific effectiveness of feral cat contro for the conservation of an endemic ground-nesting bird species. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1246–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuttlewood, C.; Greenwell, P.; Monrose, T. Pet ownership, attitude towards pets, and support for wildlife managment strategies. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2016, 21, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, S.; Hinchliffe, S.; McDonald, R. Conflict in invasive species management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aslin, H.; Bennett, D. Wildlife and world views: Australian attitudes towards wildlife. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2000, 5, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stern, P. Toward a coherent theory pf environmentally significant behaviour. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittaker, D.; Vaske, J.; Manfredo, M. Specificity and the cognitive hierarchy: Value orientations and the acceptability of urban wildlife management actions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19, 515–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estévez, R.; Anderson, C.; Pizarro, J.; Burgman, M. Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, S.; Hinchliffe, S.; McDonald, R. Invasive species managment will benefit from social impact assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shackleton, R.; Richardson, D.; Shackleton, C.; Bennett, B.; Crowley, S.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Estévez, R.; Fischer, A.; Kueffer, C.; Kull, C.; et al. Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowley, S.; Cecchetti, M.; McDonald, R. Hunting behaviour in domestic cats: An exploratory study of risk and responsibility among cat owners. People Nat. 2019, 1, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, L.; HIne, D.; Driver, A. Change the humans first: Principles for improving the management of free-roaming cats. Animals 2019, 9, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teel, T.; Manfredo, M.; Stinchfield, J. The need and theoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2007, 12, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brink, H.; Purcell, B.; Letnic, M.; Webster, H.; Appleby, R.; Jordan, N. Pets and pests: A review of the contrasting economics and fortunes of dingoes and domestic dogs in Asutralia, and a proposed new funding scheme for non-lethal dingo managment. Wildl. Res. 2019, 46, 365–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gosling, L.; Stavisky, J.; Dean, R. What is a feral cat? Variations in definitions may be associated with different management strategies. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2013, 15, 759–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toukhsati, S.; Young, E.; Bennett, P.; Coleman, G. Wandering cats: Attitudes and behaviors towards cat containment in Australia. Anthrozoös 2012, 25, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farnworth, M.; Dye, N.; Keown, N. The legal status of cats in New Zeland: A perspective on the welfare of companion, stray and feral domestic cats (Felis catus). J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2010, 12, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loss, S.; Will, T.; Longcore, T.; Marra, P. Responding to misinformation and criticisms regarding United States cat predation estimates. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 3385–3396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loyd, K.; Hernandez, S. Public perceptions of domestic cats and preferences for feral cat management in Southeastern United States. Anthrozoös 2015, 25, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, J.; Bruce, S.; Dale, A. A survey of public opinion on cat (Felis cactus) predation and the future direction on cat management in New Zeland. Animals 2017, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hall, C.; Adams, N.; Bradley, J.; Bryant, K.; Davis, A.; Dickman, C.; Fujita, T.; Kobayasji, S.; Lepczyk, C.; McBride, E.; et al. Community attitudes and practices of urban residents regarding predation by pet cats on wildlife: An international comparison. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farnworth, M.; Watson, H.; Adams, N. Understanding attitudes toward the control of non-native wild and feral mammals: Similarities and differences in the opinions of the general public, animal protectionist, and conservationist in New Zeland (Aotearoa). J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2014, 17, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Travaglia, M.; Miller, K. Cats in Australian environment: What’s your purr-spective? Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 153–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKay, S.; Farnworth, M.; Waran, N. Current attitudes toward, and incidence of, sterilization of cats and dogs by caregivers (owners) in Auckland, New Zeland. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2009, 12, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gates, M.; Walker, J.; Zito, S.; Dale, A. A survey of opinions towards dog and cat management in New Zeland. N. Z. Vet. J. 2019, 67, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rundle-Tiele, S.; Pang, B.; Knox, K.; David, P.; Parkinson, J.; Hussenoeder, F. Generating new directions for reducing dog and koala interactions: A social marketing formative research study. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croasmun, J.; Ostrom, L. Using likert-type scales in the social sciences. J. Adult Educ. 2011, 40, 19–22. [Google Scholar]
- Gower, J. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 1966, 53, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenland, S.; Pearl, J.; Robins, J. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 1999, 10, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrier, I.; Platt, R. Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC Med Res. Methodol. 2008, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fagerland, M.; Hosmer, D.; Bofin, A. Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models. Stat. Med. 2008, 27, 4238–4253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holderness-Roddam, B.; McQuillan, P. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as a predator and disrturbance agent of wildlife in Tasmania. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legge, S.; Murphy, B.; McGregor, H.; Woinarski, J.; Ausuteyn, J.; Ballard, G.; Baseler, M.; Buckmaster, T.; Dickman, C.; Doherty, T.; et al. Enumerating a continental-scale threat: How many feral cats are in Australia? Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woinarski, J.; Burbidge, A.; Harrison, P. Ongoing unraveling of continental fauna: Decline and extintion of Australian mammals since European settlement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 4531–4540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woinarski, J.; Murphy, B.; Legge, S.; Garnett, S.; Lawes, M.; Comer, S.; Dickman, C.; Doherty, T.; Edwards, G.; Nankivell, A.; et al. How many birds are killed by cats in Australia? Biol. Conserv. 2017, 214, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilith, M.; Calver, M.; Styles, I.; Garkaklis, M. Protecting wildlife from predation by owned domestic cats: Application of a precautionary approach to the acceptability of proposed cat regulations. Austral. Ecol. 2006, 31, 176–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zinn, H.; Manfredo, M.; Vaske, J.; Wittmann, K. Using normative beliefs to determine the acceptability of wildlife management actions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1998, 11, 649–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wald, D.; Jacobson, S.; Levy, J. Outdoor cats: Identifying differences between stakeholder beliefs, perceived impacts, risk and management. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 167, 414–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wald, D.; Jacobson, S. A multivariate model of stakeholder preference for lethal cat management. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loyd, K.; Miller, C. Influence of demographics, experience and value orientations on preferences for lethal management of feral cats. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2010, 15, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.; Berry, J. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1987, 15, 363–371. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, J.; McGrath, N.; Nilsson, D.; Waran, N.; Phillips, C. The role of gender in public perception of whether animals can experience grief and other emotions. Anthrozoos 2014, 27, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, H. Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös 2007, 20, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franklin, A.; Tranter, B.; White, R. Explaining support for animal rights: A comparisoon of two recent approaches to humans, nonhuman animals, and postmodernity. Soc. Anim. 2001, 9, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Phillips, C.; Izmirli, S.; Aldavood, S.; Alonso, M.; Choe, B.; Hanlon, A.; Handziska, A.; Illman, G.; Keeling, L.; Kennedy, M.; et al. An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals. Animals 2011, 1, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farnworth, M.; Campbell, J.; Adams, N. What’s in a Name? Perceptions of stray and feral cat welfare and control in Aotearoa, New Zealand. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2011, 14, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, K.; Weston, M.; Henry, S.; Maguire, G. Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes: Dog owners’ sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2009, 14, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Metsers, E.; Seddon, P.; van Heezik, Y. Cat-exclusion zones in rural and urban-fringe landscapes: How large would they have to be? Wildl. Res. 2010, 37, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calver, M.; Grayson, J.; Lilith, M.; Dickman, C. Applying the precautionary principle to the issue of impacts by pet cats on urban wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1895–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grayson, J.; Calver, M.; Styles, I. Attitudes of suburban Western Australians to proposed cat control legislation. Aust. Vet. J. 2002, 80, 536–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.; Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sicth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E6089–E6096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ceballos, G.; Ehrlich, P.; Barnosky, A.; García, A.; Pringle, R.; Palmer, T. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carter, J.; Taylor, C. Socio-economic factors in companion animal relinquishment on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Soc. Anim. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable and Category | % 1 (Number) | % for Queensland Population in 2016 |
---|---|---|
Respondent’s gender | ||
Male | 23% (134) | 51% 2 |
Female | 77% (453) | 49% |
Other | 0% (2) | |
Not provided | 1 | |
Respondent’s age (years) | ||
21 and under | 4% (24) | 7% 2 |
22 to 34 | 27% (160) | 24% |
35 to 44 | 21% (123) | 17% |
45 to 54 | 21% (122) | 17% |
55 to 64 | 17% (101) | 15% |
65 and over | 10% (58) | 19% |
Not provided | 2 | |
Respondent’s dog ownership | ||
Yes | 65% (379) | 37% 3 |
No | 35% (207) | 63% |
Not provided | 4 | |
Respondent’s cat ownership | ||
Yes | 38% (225) | 26% 3 |
No | 62% (363) | 74% |
Not provided | 2 | |
Respondent’s dog and cat ownership combined | ||
Owned both dog(s) and cat(s) | 25% (144) | 13% 4 |
Owned dog(s) but no cat(s) | 38% (244) | 25% |
Owned cat(s) but no dog(s) | 14% (79) | 16% |
Owned neither | 22% (127) | 46% |
Response not provided for either dog or cat ownership | 6 | |
Respondent’s suburb’s postcode’s socio-economic status 5 | ||
1 | 6% (35) | 7% 6 |
2 | 8% (45) | 11% |
3 | 6% (36) | 8% |
4 | 4% (25) | 8% |
5 | 13% (78) | 10% |
6 | 13% (74) | 15% |
7 | 9% (50) | 11% |
8 | 11% (63) | 14% |
9 | 15% (90) | 9% |
10 | 15% (89) | 7% |
Index value not available for postcode for two Queensland postcodes specified | 5 |
Possible Sources of Impact | Great | Some | I Am Undecided | No | No Response Provided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bushfires, floods, and droughts | 37% (217) | 59% (344) | 1% (4) | 4% (22) | 3 |
Human encroachment and development in native habitats | 90% (531) | 9% (54) | 0% (2) | 1% (3) | 0 |
Predation by cats and dogs (both wild and domestic) | 71% (417) | 27% (160) | 1% (6) | 1% (7) | 0 |
Motor vehicle collisions | 42% (249) | 52% (308) | 1% (4) | 5% (27) | 2 |
Global warming | 34% (198) | 49% (288) | 8% (45) | 9% (52) | 7 |
Diseases including introduced diseases | 43% (251) | 53% (311) | 2% (12) | 2% (14) | 2 |
Pollution | 42% (245) | 52% (307) | 2% (12) | 4% (21) | 5 |
Strategy to Control Dogs and Cats. | Strongly Unacceptable | Unacceptable | I Am Undecided | Acceptable | Strongly Acceptable | No Response Provided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strategies that directly cause dog and cat deaths due to human intervention | ||||||
Shooting | 23% (128) | 20% (110) | 6% (33) | 26% (143) | 25% (136) | 40 |
Trapping followed by humane killing | 10% (56) | 8% (46) | 4% (23) | 35% (204) | 44% (259) | 2 |
Poisoning | 42% (243) | 30% (174) | 4% (24) | 13% (75) | 11% (63) | 11 |
Introducing lethal disease | 44% (254) | 30% (177) | 8% (44) | 11% (62) | 8% (46) | 7 |
Strategies that allow the dog or cat to live a ‘natural’ life | ||||||
Using reproductive control (such as immunocontraception) | 5% (30) | 6% (35) | 5% (30) | 38% (223) | 46% (270) | 2 |
Trapping followed by desexing and returning to the wild | 18% (105) | 18% (108) | 8% (47) | 29% (173) | 26% (155) | 2 |
Introducing a new predator | 54% (315) | 33% (191) | 6% (36) | 5% (30) | 2% (13) | 5 |
Shooting | Trapping Followed by Humane Killing | Poisoning | Introducing Lethal Disease | Using Reproductive Control (Such as Immunocontraception) | Trapping Followed by Desexing and Returning to the Wild | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trapping followed by humane killing | 0.62 | |||||
Poisoning | 0.66 | 0.48 | ||||
Introducing lethal disease | 0.58 | 0.43 | 0.72 | |||
Using reproductive control (such as immunocontraception) | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.21 | ||
Trapping followed by desexing and returning to the wild | −0.39 | −0.31 | −0.29 | −0.24 | 0.13 | |
Introducing a new predator | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
Strategy | Principal Component 1 | Principal Component 2 | Factor 1 | Factor 2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strategies that cause dog and cat deaths directly due to human intervention | ||||
Shooting | 0.49 | −0.08 | 0.76 | −0.17 |
Trapping followed by humane killing | 0.37 | −0.01 | 0.58 | −0.15 |
Poisoning | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.80 | 0.04 |
Introducing lethal disease | 0.47 | 0.10 | 0.71 | 0.18 |
Strategies that allow the dog or cat to live a ‘natural’ life | ||||
Using reproductive control (such as immunocontraception) | 0.10 | 0.57 | 0.20 | 0.23 |
Trapping followed by desexing and returning to the wild | −0.30 | 0.61 | −0.23 | 0.44 |
Introducing a new predator | 0.21 | 0.54 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
Acceptance of Strategies That Cause Dog and Cat Deaths Directly Due to Human Intervention: | Low | High | Low | High |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of Strategies That Allow the Dog or Cat to Live a ‘Natural’ Life: | Low | Low | High | High |
% (number) of respondents | 32% (170) | 18% (95) | 42% (219) | 8% (43) |
Respondent’s gender | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
Male | 22% (27) 2 | 30% (36) | 29% (35) | 20% (24) |
Female | 35% (143) | 15% (59) | 45% (183) | 5% (19) |
Not provided | 1 | |||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | <0.0014 | |||
Male | Ref. cat 5 | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Female | 0.4 (0.2 to 0.7) 0.001 | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.8) 0.975 | 0.2 (0.1 to 0.4) <0.001 | |
Respondent’s age (years) | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
34 and under | 38% (63) | 10% (16) | 47% (78) | 5% (8) |
35 to 44 | 28% (30) | 19% (20) | 45% (48) | 8% (8) |
45 to 54 | 36% (41) | 25% (28) | 30% (34) | 9% (10) |
55 to 64 | 23% (21) | 23% (21) | 42% (38) | 12% (11) |
65 and over | 29% (15) | 20% (10) | 39% (20) | 12% (6) |
Not provided | 1 | |||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.044 | |||
34 and under | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
35 to 44 | 3.3 (1.4 to 7.7) 0.005 | 1.3 (0.7 to 2.3) 0.377 | 2.5 (0.8 to 8.0) 0.108 | |
45 to 54 | 2.9 (1.3 to 6.2) 0.009 | 0.7 (0.4 to 1.2) 0.190 | 2.0 (0.7 to 6.0) 0.190 | |
55 to 64 | 3.2 (1.3 to 7.5) 0.009 | 1.5 (0.8 to 2.8) 0.249 | 3.0 (1.0 to 9.0) 0.045 | |
65 and over | 2.1 (0.8 to 5.9) 0.149 | 1.0 (0.5 to 2.2) 0.957 | 2.0 (0.5 to 7.4) 0.309 | |
Respondent’s dog ownership | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
No | 27% (50) | 22% (42) | 41% (77) | 10% (19) |
Yes | 36% (120) | 16% (53) | 42% (140) | 7% (23) |
Not provided | 2 | 1 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.220 | |||
No | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Yes | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.0) 0.052 | 0.8 (0.5 to 1.2) 0.272 | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.2) 0.160 | |
Respondent’s cat ownership | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
No | 29% (94) | 23% (73) | 37% (117) | 11% (36) |
Yes | 37% (76) | 10% (21) | 49% (101) | 3% (7) |
Not provided | 1 | 1 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | <0.001 | |||
No | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Yes | 0.4 (0.2 to 0.7) 0.002 | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.6) 0.920 | 0.2 (0.1 to 0.6) 0.003 | |
Respondent’s suburb’s postcode’s socio-economic status 6 | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
1 to 4 | 32% (41) | 24% (30) | 35% (44) | 9% (12) |
5 to 7 | 33% (58) | 13% (23) | 46% (82) | 8% (15) |
8 to 10 | 32% (70) | 18% (39) | 42% (92) | 7% (16) |
Index value not available for postcode or two Queensland postcodes specified | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.412 | |||
1 to 4 | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
5 to 7 | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.2) 0.150 | 1.4 (0.8 to 2.4) 0.272 | 0.9 (0.4 to 2.4) 0.913 | |
8 to 10 | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.6) 0.524 | 1.2 (0.7 to 2.1) 0.438 | 0.8 (0.3 to 1.9) 0.603 |
Option | Unimportant | I Am Undecided | Important | Very Important | No Response Provided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dog-specific options | |||||
Mandatory desexing of pet dogs | 5% (27) | 3% (15) | 19% (110) | 74% (437) | 1 |
Confinement of dogs to the owner’s property | 3% (19) | 1% (6) | 21% (122) | 75% (443) | 0 |
Compulsory registration of dogs by local council | 11% (63) | 2% (14) | 21% (125) | 65% (383) | 5 |
Cat-specific options | |||||
Mandatory desexing of pet cats | 3% (16) | 1% (8) | 10% (57) | 86% (509) | 0 |
Confinement of cats to the owner’s property | 4% (23) | 2% (12) | 19% (113) | 75% (440) | 2 |
Confinement of cats inside the house or in a specially constructed cat enclosure | 12% (69) | 6% (36) | 26% (151) | 57% (333) | 1 |
Cat confinement (highest importance of the two preceding variables) | 4% (23) | 2% (10) | 17% (101) | 77% (453) | 3 |
Compulsory registration of cats by local council | 16% (92) | 5% (32) | 19% (114) | 60% (352) | 0 |
Cats required to wear a bell at all times | 20% (119) | 4% (25) | 29% (170) | 47% (275) | 1 |
Options for both species | |||||
The development of suburbs/areas that are completely pet free | 57% (335) | 18% (103) | 15% (90) | 10% (58) | 4 |
Compulsory licensing to own a pet | 16% (94) | 6% (35) | 27% (157) | 52% (304) | 0 |
On-the-spot audits and fines of pet owners with wandering cats and dogs | 15% (91) | 8% (47) | 31% (180) | 46% (270) | 2 |
Compulsory Registration of Dogs | Compulsory Registration of Cats | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Unimportant | I Am Undecided | Important | Very Important | |
Unimportant | 61 | 1 | 1 | |
I am undecided | 14 | |||
Important | 17 | 6 | 90 | 12 |
Very important | 13 | 10 | 22 | 338 |
No response provided | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Important or Very Important for Dogs: | No | Yes | Yes |
---|---|---|---|
Important or Very Important for Cats: | No | No | Yes |
% (number) of respondents | 13% (76) | 8% (46) | 79% (462) |
Respondent’s gender | |||
% 1 (number) | |||
Male | 10% (13) 2 | 8% (10) | 83% (110) |
Female | 14% (63) | 8% (36) | 78% (349) |
Not provided | 3 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.7514 | ||
Male | Ref. cat 5 | Ref. cat | |
Female | 0.7 (0.3 to 1.9) 0.499 | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.6) 0.513 | |
Respondent’s age (years) | |||
% 1 (number) | |||
34 and under | 12% (21) | 3% (6) | 85% (154) |
35 to 44 | 16% (20) | 11% (13) | 73% (90) |
45 to 54 | 16% (19) | 8% (10) | 76% (91) |
55 to 64 | 11% (11) | 9% (9) | 80% (81) |
65 and over | 9% (5) | 11% (6) | 81% (46) |
Not provided | 2 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.107 | ||
34 and under | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
35 to 44 | 2.3 (0.7 to 7.5) 0.162 | 0.7 (0.3 to 1.3) 0.220 | |
45 to 54 | 2.3 (0.7 to 7.8) 0.175 | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.2) 0.180 | |
55 to 64 | 3.1 (0.8 to 11.5) 0.097 | 0.9 (0.4 to 2.1) 0.848 | |
65 and over | 5.0 (1.1 to 23.9) 0.042 | 0.9 (0.3 to 2.5) 0.785 | |
Respondent’s dog ownership | |||
% 1 (number) | |||
No | 10% (20) | 12% (24) | 78% (159) |
Yes | 15% (56) | 6% (21) | 80% (300) |
Not provided | 1 | 3 | |
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.026 | ||
No | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Yes | 0.3 (0.2 to 0.8) 0.01 | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.4) 0.383 | |
Respondent’s cat ownership | |||
% 1 (number) | |||
No | 10% (36) | 4% (13) | 86% (311) |
Yes | 17% (39) | 15% (33) | 68% (151) |
Not provided | 1 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | <0.001 | ||
No | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Yes | 2.8 (1.2 to 6.6) 0.016 | 0.5 (0.3 to 0.8) 0.005 | |
Respondent’s suburb’s postcode’s socio-economic status 6 | |||
% 1 (number) | |||
1 to 4 | 14% (20) | 9% (12) | 77% (108) |
5 to 7 | 16% (33) | 8% (16) | 76% (152) |
8 to 10 | 10% (23) | 8% (18) | 83% (198) |
Index value not available for postcode or two Queensland postcodes specified | 4 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.465 | ||
1 to 4 | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
5 to 7 | 0.6 (0.2 to 1.7) 0.341 | 0.8 (0.5 to 1.6) 0.608 | |
8 to 10 | 1.0 (0.4 to 2.8) 0.943 | 1.4 (0.7 to 2.7) 0.320 |
Compulsory Licensing to Own a Pet and on-the-Spot Audits and Fines of Pet Owners with Wandering Cats and Dogs: | None or Only One Important or Very Important | Both Important or Very Important | None or Only One Important or Very Important | Both Important or Very Important |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Development of Suburbs/Areas That Are Completely Pet Free: | Unimportant or Undecided | Unimportant or Undecided | Important or Very Important | Important or VERY Important |
% (number) of respondents | 28% (164) | 6% (35) | 47% (273) | 19% (112) |
Respondent’s gender | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
Male | 20% (26) 2 | 5% (7) | 52% (69) | 23% (31) |
Female | 31% (137) | 6% (28) | 45% (202) | 18% (81) |
Not provided | 1 | 2 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.0884 | |||
Male | Ref. cat 5 | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Female | 0.7 (0.2 to 1.9) 0.475 | 0.5 (0.3 to 0.9) 0.015 | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.1) 0.079 | |
Respondent’s age (years) | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
34 and under | 31% (57) | 7% (12) | 48% (87) | 14% (26) |
35 to 44 | 26% (32) | 6% (7) | 54% (67) | 14% (17) |
45 to 54 | 28% (34) | 8% (10) | 42% (50) | 22% (26) |
55 to 64 | 28% (28) | 3% (3) | 45% (45) | 24% (24) |
65 and over | 21% (12) | 5% (3) | 40% (23) | 33% (19) |
Not provided | 1 | 1 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.314 | |||
34 and under | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
35 to 44 | 1.3 (0.5 to 3.9) 0.590 | 1.5 (0.8 to 2.6) 0.166 | 1.2 (0.6 to 2.7) 0.572 | |
45 to 54 | 1.4 (0.5 to 4.0) 0.503 | 0.9 (0.5 to 1.6) 0.676 | 1.5 (0.8 to 3.1) 0.238 | |
55 to 64 | 0.6 (0.1 to 2.2) 0.406 | 1.0 (0.5 to 1.8) 0.970 | 1.5 (0.7 to 3.2) 0.274 | |
65 and over | 0.9 (0.2 to 4.7) 0.887 | 1.1 (0.5 to 2.5) 0.762 | 2.6 (1.1 to 6.4) 0.033 | |
Respondent’s dog ownership | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
No | 32% (66) | 7% (15) | 37% (77) | 23% (48) |
Yes | 26% (97) | 5% (20) | 52% (194) | 17% (63) |
Not provided | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.004 | |||
No | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Yes | 1.1 (0.5 to 2.4) 0.872 | 2.0 (1.3 to 3.1) 0.001 | 1.1 (0.6 to 1.8) 0.84 | |
Respondent’s cat ownership | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
No | 24% (87) | 4% (16) | 48% (174) | 23% (83) |
Yes | 34% (76) | 8% (18) | 45% (99) | 13% (29) |
Not provided | 1 | 1 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI) 3 | 0.029 | |||
No | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
Yes | 1.4 (0.6 to 3.1) 0.413 | 0.7 (0.5 to 1.1) 0.167 | 0.5 (0.3 to 0.9) 0.012 | |
Respondent’s suburb’s postcode’s socio-economic status 6 | ||||
% 1 (number) | ||||
1 to 4 | 33% (46) | 3% (4) | 40% (56) | 24% (34) |
5 to 7 | 32% (65) | 4% (9) | 47% (94) | 16% (33) |
8 to 10 | 22% (53) | 8% (19) | 51% (123) | 18% (44) |
Index value not available for postcode or two Queensland postcodes specified | 3 | 1 | ||
Adjusted relative risk ratio (95% CI)3 | 0.011 | |||
1 to 4 | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | Ref. cat | |
5 to 7 | 1.4 (0.4 to 4.8) 0.640 | 1.2 (0.7 to 2.0) 0.485 | 0.7 (0.4 to 1.4) 0.319 | |
8 to 10 | 4.2 (1.3 to 13.6) 0.015 | 2.0 (1.2 to 3.4) 0.010 | 1.1 (0.6 to 2.0) 0.827 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carter, J.; Paterson, M.B.A.; Morton, J.M.; Gelves-Gomez, F. Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife. Animals 2020, 10, 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091637
Carter J, Paterson MBA, Morton JM, Gelves-Gomez F. Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife. Animals. 2020; 10(9):1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091637
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarter, Jennifer, Mandy B. A. Paterson, John M. Morton, and Francisco Gelves-Gomez. 2020. "Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife" Animals 10, no. 9: 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091637
APA StyleCarter, J., Paterson, M. B. A., Morton, J. M., & Gelves-Gomez, F. (2020). Beliefs and Attitudes of Residents in Queensland, Australia, about Managing Dog and Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife. Animals, 10(9), 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091637