Europe as a model for large carnivores conservation: Is the glass half empty or half full?

Gippoliti, Spartaco; Brito, Daniel; Cerfolli, Fulvio; Franco, Daniel; Kryštufek, Boris; Battisti, Corrado

doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2017.11.007

Cited by 41 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, the wolf may become a symbol of tensions between biodiversity conservation and agricultural development agenda and a scapegoat for a failure of the authorities to support sheep farming (Chapron and López-Bao, 2014). However, conservation policy related to wolf and other large predators is unlikely to be uniform across Europe due to inherent cultural, environmental, and socio-political differences between its countries (Gippoliti et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large-Scale Sheep Losses to Wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany Are Related to the Expansion of the Wolf Population but Not to Increasing Wolf Numbers

Khorozyan

Heurich

2022

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery of predator populations triggers conflicts due to livestock depredation losses, particularly in Germany where the wolf (Canis lupus) population grows exponentially and livestock (especially sheep) losses raise public concerns and motivate the authorities to control wolf numbers. Yet, the effects of wolf numbers and alternative factors, such as abundance of prey and livestock, on livestock losses in this country are not investigated. In this study, we collected and analyzed data on the numbers of reproductive units of wolves (packs and pairs together) as a surrogate of adult wolf numbers, sheep killed by wolves, living sheep, red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa) in every German state and year from 2002 to 2019. We applied a negative binomial Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) to estimate the effects of these predictors on the numbers of sheep killed by wolves. We also examined the relationships between the percentages of killed/living sheep and the numbers of living sheep. Ranking of 63 models based on the Akaike information criterion revealed that sheep losses were determined by state, year, and number of living sheep, not by wolf numbers, at high precision and accuracy. The number of sheep killed by wolves increased consistently by 41% per year and by 30% for every additional 10,000 sheep, mainly in the north where most wolf territories are concentrated. This means that sheep are protected insufficiently and/or ineffectively. The percentages of killed/living sheep consistently increased by 0.02–0.05% per state and year, with the maximum percentage of 0.7%, on a backdrop of decreasing numbers of living sheep. In conclusion, we demonstrate that sheep losses in Germany have been driven by the expansion of the wolf population, not by wolf numbers, and by the number of sheep available. We suggest that Germany’s wolf conservation policy should focus on alternative non-lethal interventions, enforcement and standardization of intervention monitoring, and promotion of wolf tolerance rather than on lethal control of wolf population size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large-Scale Sheep Losses to Wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany Are Related to the Expansion of the Wolf Population but Not to Increasing Wolf Numbers

Khorozyan

Heurich

2022

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This validation needs to be based on the most practical and potentially sustainable local solutions, especially for cheetahs and lions in African and Asian (i.e., cheetahs in Iran, lions in India) countries with low to medium income where the spectrum of applicable interventions is limited. Eurasian lynx and gray wolf are still of least conservation concern, but they constitute many locally threatened or recolonizing populations that demand urgent attention to their protection and safety of human assets (Chapron et al, 2014;Gippoliti et al, 2018;Mech, 2017). As lynx and wolves live in more economically developed countries, the choice of suitable interventions appears not to be of primary concern to address these predators.…”

Section: Local Practicality Of the Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Application and validation of the framework of most effective practices is also important to protect livestock from Eurasian lynx and gray wolf in places of conflicts with humans. This is particularly topical for Europe and North America where the comeback of predators through natural recolonization or reintroductions brings new, forgotten-overtime issues of livestock losses and confrontations between farmers and conservationists (Chapron et al, 2014;Gippoliti et al, 2018;Mech, 2017).…”

Section: Future Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Khorozyan

Waltert

2019

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The need to engage stakeholders is pronounced in human-dominated landscapes due to fear of human-carnivore encounters (e.g., Johansson et al, 2016) and damage caused by these species (see Bautista et al, 2017Bautista et al, , 2019Van Eeden et al, 2017;Widman and Elofsson, 2018). Therefore, the comeback of large carnivores in many European human-dominated localities has exacerbated the challenge of human-carnivore coexistence (Chapron et al, 2014;Gippoliti et al, 2018). It has also refueled the debate about an urban-rural divide in dispositions toward large carnivores (see, for instance, Hovardas and Korfiatis, 2012a;Hovardas, 2018a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Social Learning Approach for Stakeholder Engagement in Large Carnivore Conservation and Management

Hovardas

2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper reports on a methodology for stakeholder engagement in large carnivore conservation and management, which was implemented in a LIFE project in Greece (LIFE AMYBEAR: Improving Human-Bear Coexistence Conditions in Municipality of Amyntaio–LIFE15 NAT/GR/001108). The methodology was employed within the frame of human dimension actions in that project and included three different stages planned in a modular sequence (stakeholder analysis, stakeholder consultation and involvement, and participatory scenario development). Each stage was operationalized by means of a template (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis template; mixed-motive template; template for participatory scenario development), which was designed to structure stakeholder input and interaction and scaffold social learning. The templates were completed by standard methods and procedures in social science, namely, interviews, focus groups, and workshops. The presentation of the methodology in this paper has a demonstration character. The main aim is to showcase its heuristic value in steering stakeholder collaboration and tracking change as a result of stakeholder joint action. The paper will demonstrate the benefits and added value of innovation and change initiated by actions in the LIFE project, as well as the costs or unintended consequences of that innovation and change, which need to be tackled by future stakeholder collaboration. The beginnings of an institutionalization of stakeholder involvement revealed features of both formal (e.g., new institutions established such as a Bear Emergency Team) and informal institutions (e.g., social norms). These features illustrated a departure from the current condition, where social learning may already be traceable. At the same time, however, stakeholder interaction has also delineated additional aspects that need to be addressed by stakeholders. The added value of the methodology is that it can be enacted by stakeholders themselves, provided that they are empowered to take ownership of the social learning process. Therefore, it can be exploited in after-LIFE plans. The approach can also be used in other multi-stakeholder arrangements, such as platforms concentrated on wildlife conservation and management. Finally, it should be noted that the methodology and templates fill an important gap, often highlighted in the social learning literature, in that they offer a toolkit for monitoring and assessment.

show abstract

Europe as a model for large carnivores conservation: Is the glass half empty or half full?

Cited by 41 publications

References 59 publications

Large-Scale Sheep Losses to Wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany Are Related to the Expansion of the Wolf Population but Not to Increasing Wolf Numbers

Large-Scale Sheep Losses to Wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany Are Related to the Expansion of the Wolf Population but Not to Increasing Wolf Numbers

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

A Social Learning Approach for Stakeholder Engagement in Large Carnivore Conservation and Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About