# A Rebuttal of McKeague et al. (2024): “Conservation Detection Dogs: A Critical Review of Efficacy and Methodology”

## TL;DR

This paper responds to a critical review of conservation detection dogs, offering rebuttals based on the author's extensive field experience.

## Contribution

The paper provides a rebuttal to a prior review, highlighting methodological concerns and offering an alternative perspective.

## Key findings

- The author challenges the methodology used in selecting and reviewing studies.
- Concerns are raised about the analyses and conclusions of the original review.
- A detailed rebuttal is prepared and available upon request.

## Abstract

This letter to the editor is offered in rebuttal of “Conservation detection dogs: A critical review of efficacy and methodology,” by McKeague et al. (2024), published in Ecology and Evolution. Drawing from over a decade of experience as a conservation detection dog handler within one of the longest standing organizations in North America, and with over two decades as a field biologist and researcher, the author shares insights around fundamental misgivings and concerns regarding the methodology used for the selection and review of studies, the core analyses conducted, and the ensuing conclusions and recommendations. A detailed rebuttal/critical review has been prepared and is available via request from the author.