A framework of most effective practices in protecting human assets from predators

Abstract

Widespread damage by large mammalian predators to human assets (e.g., livestock, crops, neighborhood safety) requires the application of non-invasive (i.e., without direct contact with predators) and targeted interventions to promote predator conservation and local livelihoods. We compiled 117 cases from 23 countries describing the effectiveness of 12 interventions designed to protect human assets from 21 predators. We found: (a) the most effective interventions were electric fences, guarding animals, calving control, and physical deterrents (protective collars and shocking devices); (b) the most effectively protected asset was livestock; and (c) the most effective interventions being used were to protect assets from cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and lions (Panthera leo). In all of these cases, the relative risk of damage was reduced by 50-100%. We combined these outcomes into a novel framework of most effective practices and discussed its structure, practicality, and future applications.

Variation and conservation implications of the effectiveness of anti-bear interventions

“…Still, we find these measures promising and suggest scientists and practitioners to invest more effort into their application and effectiveness estimation. Calving control means shortening the calving season to several months and limiting calf accessibility to open grazing grounds 36 . As calves and other juveniles of livestock constitute most losses, reducing the period of calf availability keeps losses down 25 .…”

“…It was found that guarding dogs and llamas are effective against brown bears and American black bears 35 . The largest bear samples compiled in studies 32 , 36 showed that the effectiveness of interventions varied greatly between study areas and within ursid species, making it hard to reveal species-specific and general patterns. Due to these limitations, so far it was impossible to find the most effective and the least effective interventions against bears and to compare the effectiveness of non-invasive interventions, invasive management and lethal control.…”

Animal Welfare in Predator Control: Lessons from Land and Sea. How the Management of Terrestrial and Marine Mammals Impacts Wild Animal Welfare in Human–Wildlife Conflict Scenarios in Europe

“…Lethal control can, for example, alter carnivore social structure and cause more individuals to migrate, take over and start depredating in an area, thus exacerbating a problem rather than solving it [12,135]. Predator controls that have not been proven to be effective should not be used and more studies need to be carried out to determine the best ways to approach different conflict scenarios [14].…”

“…A seal blind is the area at the bottom of the net where a thicker square of netting material conceals dead fish from seals approaching the net from underneath [74]. Khorozyan and Waltert also found controls around calving to be important for reducing conflict [14]. Afterbirth can attract carnivores and so it is necessary to plan the timing and location of calving [65].…”

“…Some authors have recently started to evaluate the effectiveness of non-lethal methods used to manage predators, e.g., [11][12][13][14]. Khorozyan and Waltert, for example, assessed the effectiveness of various husbandry-related methods (fences and other enclosures, guarding animals, and herding), aversion methods (including acoustical, chemical, physical, and visual deterrents or a combination of these), and management methods (livestock breed replacement, calving control and supplemental feeding of predators) [14]. They concluded that the most effective interventions were electric fences, guarding animals, physical deterrents (protective collars and shocking devices) and calving control (i.e., shortening the calving season and limiting calf access to open grazing areas).…”