Detection Dogs and Non-Invasive Wildlife Monitoring

As our understanding of wildlife ethics advances, non-invasive methods of monitoring are becoming increasingly sought after. As part of this trend, conservation detection dogs are emerging as one of the most effective (and cute) non-invasive methods there is. However, it’s hard to truly claim that something is non-invasive. For example, checking camera traps requires hiking into habitat that may be near a nest or den site. Similarly, the removal of scat for conservation purposes could have unintended impacts on territorial communication of the target species. In this article, we will explore the impacts of detection dogs as a less-invasive method.

The aim is not to say that detection dogs or any other methods should not be used. It is simply to highlight the importance of critical thinking in the field of ecology. Because nothing is truly impact-less (i.e. perfect), the pros and cons of each method should be weighed to determine their suitability for individual projects. First, we need a solid understanding of what non-invasive wildlife monitoring is.

What is Non-Invasive Wildlife Monitoring?

Non-invasive wildlife monitoring is the observation and/or data collection of wildlife in minimally disturbing ways. It typically involves the collection of hair, scat, or some other form of biological matter. 

Examples:

• Camera trapping
• Location of traces such as scat or scrapes
• Analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA)
• Acoustic monitoring
• Visual observation such as avian point counts or using scopes to observe behavior (see this episode of the K9 Conservationists podcast)

Benefits (in general):

• More cost effective than invasive methods
  • Ex: single-capture hair snares can be a cheaper alternative to capturing and handling, which typically requires more time and maintenance
• Logistically easier – in terms of training new personnel, as well as legality
• More efficient – can allow for the study of broader areas, more species, etc. in less time
• Less likely to create stress responses in wildlife 
• Safer for all involved
  • Ex: Invasive methods such as chemical immobilization of wildlife pose risks such as misdosage, misplacement of darts, capture stress, and accidental human exposure to narcotics. 

Downsides:

• Behaviors that don’t leave evidence are easily missed
• Harder to obtain detailed spatial information than with methods such as tagging

When is Non-Invasive Wildlife Monitoring Necessary?

Non-invasive monitoring is especially important for species that are…

• Rare
• Elusive
• Dangerous to humans

For example, drones may be used to track dangerous species in remote areas.

Detection Dogs as Non-Invasive Wildlife Monitors

In a 2021 study, detection dogs helped researchers find four times as many Pyrenean bear scats per year compared to human-only searches. The study found that this was not a result of population size, but of the increased searcher accuracy and efficiency of dogs. This resulted in the collection of more samples for DNA analysis, and the subsequent identification of more individuals, particularly cubs. Additionally, one literature review found that out of 611 studies comparing detection dogs to other methods, dogs outperformed other methods in nearly 90% of cases. The dogs at K9 Conservationists have also done their share of scat detection.

   In March of 2023, Kayla and her dogs Barley and Niffler helped collect carnivore scat in the Maya Biosphere Preserve of Guatemala. Target species included jaguars, mountain lions, ocelots, margays, jaguarundis, tayras, and gray foxes. The project was a great success, resulting in the detection of thirteen times as many scats compared to human-only searches. The dogs detected scat even in dense foliage through which humans could not see, as well as small scats that eluded human eyes. This allowed researchers to gather data about smaller, more elusive species (e.g. tayras, ocelots, and margays), and collect as many scats in 7 survey days as human-only teams found in 2 months. The careful and thorough selection of K9 Conservationists dogs ensured that even when a jaguar crossed a trail just 50 meters from Niffler during a search, he recalled directly to his handler the first time he was called. 

All in all, detection dogs have proven themselves to be one of the most effective non-invasive wildlife monitoring methods, particularly for rare, elusive, and potentially dangerous species. But what are the long-term impacts of bringing dogs into sensitive habitats? Are they really as non-invasive as they claim to be?

How Non-Invasive Are Detection Dogs, Really?

While research remains to be done on this subject, it is increasingly being thought of and taken into account. For example, handlers can specially train their dogs to behave properly around wildlife. In one episode of the K9 Conservationists podcast, Kayla speaks with Simone Mueller, a certified trainer and dog behavior consultant, about Predation Substitute Training. With this type of training, dogs learn to substitute predatory behaviors such as chasing with alternate behaviors such as standing and watching. Still, some prey animals may become distressed at the sight, sound, or smell of a detection dog team in their vicinity. Even the best-trained detection dog may flush the target species or other species in the area. How likely is this to happen?

In one episode of the K9 Conservationists podcast, Kayla talks with Naomi Hodges and Dr. Jessica Thomas about their work using dogs to detect platypus burrows at the Healesville sanctuary in Victoria, Australia. After using dogs, researchers continued to monitor burrows to see if the presence of dogs affected their use among platypuses. The dogs were not found to have a major impact. Rather, the main predictor of platypus movement and burrow avoidance was water flow. However, many of the areas surveyed were within urban bounds, meaning the platypuses were likely used to dogs already. The results could be different in highly protected areas or with different target species. This indicates that while the use of a detection dog will not necessarily have negative ecosystem impacts, it is best to take precautions.

Making The Most of Conservation Detection Dogs

For conservation detection dogs to be successful, all parties must understand the behavior of both dogs and wildlife in the area of study. This means acknowledging risks that may arise if they come into contact. As detailed in chapter 10 of the book Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation, ways to minimize risk include…

• Timing surveys to avoid periods of high wildlife activity
• Avoiding areas where wildlife is known to congregate
• Ensuring that detection of scat, nests, etc. causes minimal disturbance to the target species

As an example (provided by the book), if the target species is a bird known to flee the nest when disturbed, nests should not be targeted for detection and surveys should be timed to avoid peak nesting season. Responsible ecologists will also consider species in the ecosystem beyond the target species. 

When live animals are targeted, even stricter precautions are necessary. As detailed in Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation, dogs must be able to quickly shift focus from target to handler. For an example of this sort of survey, listen to the K9 Conservationists podcast episode with Esther Matthew of the Endangered Wildlife Trust as she explains the process of training her dog Jessie to find live riverine rabbits. Barking is highly discouraged, as are “refind” alerts in which the dog travels back and forth between target and handler. In some cases, dogs may work on-leash or in muzzles. Handlers must respond immediately to harassment and/or predatory behavior exhibited by their dogs. It’s important to note that even with every precaution in place, dogs are not the right choice for every project, and that is okay.    At the end of the day, even the most non-invasive methods of wildlife monitoring have the potential for unintended ecosystem impacts. This does not negate the many benefits of these methods. It does, however, mean that researchers should think critically about each method before deciding what is right for their project. It also means that we are becoming increasingly aware of the effects our actions have on the environment, even when we are trying to help. That is a step in the right direction.