Human-carnivore relations: conflicts, tolerance and coexistence in the American West

Abstract

Carnivore and humans live in proximity due to carnivore recovery efforts and ongoing human encroachment into carnivore habitats globally. The American West is a region that uniquely exemplifies these human-carnivore dynamics, however, it is unclear how the research community here integrates social and ecological factors to examine human-carnivore relations. Therefore, strategies promoting human-carnivore coexistence are urgently needed. We conducted a systematic review on human-carnivore relations in the American West covering studies between 2000 and 2018.We first characterized human-carnivore relations across states of the American West. Second, we analyzed similarities and dissimilarities across states in terms of coexistence, tolerance, number of ecosystem services and conflicts mentioned in literature. Third, we used Bayesian modeling to quantify the effect of social and ecological factors influencing the scientific interest on coexistence, tolerance, ecosystem services and conflicts. Results revealed some underlying biases in humancarnivore relations research. Colorado and Montana were the states where the highest proportion of studies were conducted with bears and wolves the most studied species. Non-lethal management was the most common strategy to mitigate conflicts. Overall, conflicts with carnivores were much more frequently mentioned than benefits. We found similarities among Arizona, California, Utah, and New Mexico according to how coexistence, tolerance, services and conflicts are addressed in literature. We identified percentage of federal/private land, carnivore family, social actors, and management actions, as factors explaining how coexistence, tolerance, conflicts and services are addressed in literature. We provide a roadmap to foster tolerance towards carnivores and successful coexistence strategies in the American West based on four main domains, (1) the dual role of carnivores as providers of both

Conservation reliance and its influence on support for carnivore recovery

“…Research suggests that tactical policy is closely tied to an individual's tolerance or intention to share space with carnivores. Tolerance, a widely studied phenomenon that has been enfolded into the coexistence construct (Expósito-Granados et al, 2019), is defined here as one's cognitive and material capacity to endure continued subjection to carnivores. Treves and Naughton-Treves et al (2005) argued that lethal control must raise tolerance for damage without detrimental population reductions.…”

“…They concluded by arguing that increased tolerance will help increase support for carnivore conservation and likelihood of long‐term coexistence (echoed by Frank, 2016 and others). In this view, building tolerance can be considered not just a psychological construct (Slagle & Bruskotter, 2019) or necessary condition (Expósito‐Granados et al, 2019), but as tactical policy to achieve coexistence along with translocation, trapping, and lethal control. Hence, it is included as one of four tactical policies considered within the intention to coexist variable.…”

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

“…We focus on the American West because the region consists of a mosaic of land-cover types, with large amounts of public land under varying degrees of protection, use, and ownership. This public land supports high levels of connectivity and habitat for wildlife populations, including those with large resource requirements such as large and wide-ranging mammals (Barnes et al, 2016;Expósito-Granados et al, 2019). However, these wildlife populations are under threat from energy development projects, urban and ex-urban sprawl, increasing road traffic and density, and amenity-driven human migration (Leu et al, 2008).…”

Human adaptation strategies are key to cobenefits in human–wildlife systems

“…Who is involved and has power in the implementation of group adaptations, such as building conservation fences, is also noteworthy because defining boundaries and access rights is a highly political process (Evans & Adams, 2016). Other work underscores the importance of conservation incentives fitting within existing cultural values (Expósito-Granados et al, 2019;Hazzah et al, 2014). However, the numerous and often complex relationships that stakeholders can have with wildlife generate uncertainty in their role of producing cobenefits (Pooley et al, 2017).…”