Tools and Technology Note Detection Dogs: An Effective Technique for Bush Dog Surveys KAREN E. DEMATTEO, 1 University of Missouri-St. Louis, Department of Biology, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA MIGUEL A. RINAS, Ministerio de Ecologı ´a RNRyT, Leandro N Alem 4907, 3300 Posadas Misiones, Argentina MARIANO M. SEDE, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Quı ´micas y Naturales, Fe ´lix de Azara 1552, CPA 3300LQH, Posadas Misiones, Argentina BARBARA DAVENPORT, PackLeader Dog Training LLC, 14401 Crews Road KPN, Gig Harbor, WA 98329, USA CARINA F. ARGU ¨ ELLES, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Quı ´micas y Naturales, Fe ´lix de Azara 1552, CPA 3300LQH, Posadas Misiones, Argentina KEITH LOVETT, Palm Beach Zoo, 1301 Summit Boulevard, West Palm Beach, FL 33405, USA PATRICIA G. PARKER, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Department of Biology, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA ABSTRACT Detailed ecological data on the bush dog (Speothos venaticus) have been lacking, since standard field techniques, such as camera traps, have had little success recording their presence. This study eliminates dependence on visitation rate and switches the focus to locating evidence (e.g., olfactory) associated with the species’ natural behavior and movement patterns. Over a 3-month period, a detection dog located multiple (n 5 11, 4 confirmed and 7 potential) bush dog areas in Upper Parana ´ Atlantic Forest of Misiones Argentina. These positive results demonstrate that detection dogs can provide species-specific data on the bush dog despite the rugged terrain and dense forest vegetation they may occupy. The ecological data collected using this technique allow effective conservation strategies to be developed, wildlife corridors and biological crossings to be designed, and species distributions to be examined. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 73(8):1436–1440; 2009) DOI: 10.2193/2008-545 KEY WORDS Argentina, detection dog, elusive carnivore, neotropical forest, scent survey, Speothos venaticus. The rarity and elusive nature of many poorly understood species makes the use of standard survey techniques, such as tracking stations, camera- or live-traps, and hair snares, inefficient. Failure to detect the presence of a species with these methods may result in the incorrect conclusion that the species does not occur in that location, when in reality the animals may be actively avoiding the altered habitat, artificial structures, or animal trails typically associated with these methods. These surveys are useful in estimating species’ abundance if the target species’ visitation rate at the specified location is above 10% (Sargeant et al. 2003, Freilich et al. 2005); however, with rare species visitation rates may be especially low (,10%), making it difficult or impossible to achieve this minimum. A survey technique that eliminates dependence on chance visitation of target species to a fixed survey location and focuses instead on locating physical evidence (e.g., scat, feathers, or hair) that persists for some finite time may increase the likelihood of detecting rare species. In the last decade, researchers have used the extraordinary sense of smell and task-oriented focus of detection dogs (i.e., domestic dogs trained on a reward system to locate a particular odor or set of odors) to locate samples, such as scat, from a variety of target species in the field with both reliable and repeatable success (Smith et al. 2003, Wasser et al. 2004, Cablk and Heaton 2006, Silveira et al. 2009, Long et al. 2008). The olfactory search image of domestic dogs provides many advantages over the visual search image used by humans, including 1) the visual appearance of samples does not affect the dog’s ability to discriminate odor, 2) whether the target sample is exposed or masked by the environment does not affect the dog’s ability to pinpoint its exact location, 3) dogs can locate multiple target species within a search area while ignoring nontarget species, and 4) dogs can cover a larger geographic area faster and more completely than humans working alone. Comparative studies have demonstrated that detection dogs are more effective than traditional survey techniques, including hair snares and camera traps, with higher detection probabilities, substantially higher raw detection rates (detections/sites surveyed), and most unique detections (occasions when only a single method detected a target species [e.g., bobcats (Lynx rufus), Harrision 2006; black bears (Ursus americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and bobcats, Long et al. 2007a, b; giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), Silveira et al. 2009]). In fact, it was estimated that detection dogs were able to increase the number of samples located by 5–15 times that which researchers could have located on their own and that 83% of the located samples were considered undetectable without assistance of a dog (Long et al. 2007b). The bush dog (Speothos venaticus), listed as Appendix I by CITES and Near Threatened in the IUCN red list (Zuercher et al. 2008), is a small (5–6 kg), social canid from Central and South America whose status and ecological requirements are poorly understood and primarily based on opportunistic sightings (Strahl et al. 1992, Beccaceci 1994, Silveira et al. 1998, Barnett et al. 2001, DeMatteo and Loiselle 2008). Throughout its broad distribution, the bush dog is reported as rare, even in habitat undisturbed by humans (DeMatteo 2008, DeMatteo and Loiselle 2008). Some researchers and conservationists 1 E-mail: KDeMatteo@aol.com 1436 The Journal of Wildlife Management N 73(8)