Deer are among the world’s most successful invasive mammals and can have substantial deleterious impacts on natural and agricultural ecosystems. Six species have established wild populations in Australia, and the distributions and abundances of some species are increasing. Approaches to managing wild deer in Australia are diverse and complex, with some populations managed as ‘game’ and others as ‘pests’. Implementation of cost-effective management strategies that account for this complexity is hindered by a lack of knowledge of the nature, extent and severity of deer impacts. To clarify the knowledge base and identify research needs, we conducted a systematic review of the impacts and management of wild deer in Australia. Most wild deer are in south-eastern Australia, but bioclimatic analysis suggested that four species are well suited to the tropical and subtropical climates of northern Australia. Deer could potentially occupy most of the continent, including parts of the arid interior. The most significant impacts are likely to occur through direct effects of herbivory, with potentially cascading indirect effects on fauna and ecosystem processes. However, evidence of impacts in Australia is largely observational, and few studies have experimentally partitioned the impacts of deer from those of sympatric native and other introduced herbivores. Furthermore, there has been little rigorous testing of the efficacy of deer management in Australia, and our understanding of the deer ecology required to guide deer management is limited. We identified the following six priority research areas: (i) identifying long-term changes in plant communities caused by deer; (ii) understanding interactions with other fauna; (iii) measuring impacts on water quality; (iv) assessing economic impacts on agriculture (including as disease vectors); (v) evaluating efficacy of management for mitigating deer impacts; and (vi) quantifying changes in distribution and abundance. Addressing these knowledge gaps will assist the development and prioritisation of cost-effective management strategies and help increase stakeholder support for managing the impacts of deer on Australian ecosystems.

“Social license to operate” (SLO) refers to the implicit process by which a community gives an industry approval to conduct its current business activities. It has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields (especially mining), but there is less awareness of its role in animal use industries. This article describes how animal welfare has recently become arguably the most crucial consideration underpinning the SLO for Australian animal use industries. It describes several industries in Australia that have faced animal welfare scrutiny in the past decade (2010–2020) to illustrate how persistent issues can erode SLO, lead to regulatory bans, and decimate previously profitable industries. Industries described include the live export of livestock, greyhound and horse racing, kangaroo harvesting, and dairy and sheep farming. In these cases, there has been intense public discourse but little scholarly progress. This article examines factors that may have contributed to these developments and suggests approaches that may assist these industries in maintaining their SLO. Animal welfare has become a mainstream societal concern in Australia, and effective management of the community’s expectations will be essential for the maintenance of SLO for many animal use industries.

There is much interest in understanding how anthropogenic food resources subsidise carnivore populations. Carcasses of hunter-shot ungulates are a potentially substantial food source for mammalian carnivores. The sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) is a large (≥150 kg) exotic ungulate that can be hunted throughout the year in south-eastern Australia, and hunters are not required to remove or bury carcasses. We investigated how wild dogs/dingoes and their hybrids (Canis lupus familiaris/dingo), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) utilised sambar deer carcasses during the peak hunting seasons (i.e. winter and spring). We placed carcasses at 1-km intervals along each of six transects that extended 4-km into forest from farm boundaries. Visits to carcasses were monitored using camera traps, and the rate of change in edible biomass estimated at ∼14-day intervals. Wild dogs and foxes fed on 70% and 60% of 30 carcasses, respectively, but feral cats seldom (10%) fed on carcasses. Spatial and temporal patterns of visits to carcasses were consistent with the hypothesis that foxes avoid wild dogs. Wild dog activity peaked at carcasses 2 and 3 km from farms, a likely legacy of wild dog control, whereas fox activity peaked at carcasses 0 and 4 km from farms. Wild dog activity peaked at dawn and dusk, whereas nearly all fox activity occurred after dusk and before dawn. Neither wild dogs nor foxes remained at carcasses for long periods and the amount of feeding activity by either species was a less important predictor of the loss of edible biomass than season. Reasons for the low impacts of wild dogs and foxes on sambar deer carcass biomass include the spatially and temporally unpredictable distribution of carcasses in the landscape, the rapid rate of edible biomass decomposition in warm periods, low wild dog densities and the availability of alternative food resources.