Non-Lethal and Lethal Tools to Manage Wolf-Livestock Conflict in the Northwestern United States

Bangs, Edward E.; Mike, Jimenez; Carter, Niemeyer; Fontaine, Joe; Collinge, Mark; Rod, Krsichke; Handegard, L.; Shivik, John; Carolyn, Sime; Steve, Nadeau; Mack, Curt M.; DouglasW, Smith; Asher, Val; Suzanne, Stone

doi:10.5070/v422110170

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), as is occurring in the United States with the employment of range riders (mounted herdsmen) (Bangs et al. ). The Lion Guardian project that began in Kenya further applies traditional conflict‐mitigation techniques and builds tolerance for lions by incorporating Maasai community cultural values and belief systems (Hazzah et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock

Eeden

Crowther

Dickman

et al. 2017

Conservation Biology

256

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large carnivores are persecuted globally because they threaten human industries and livelihoods. How this conflict is managed has consequences for the conservation of large carnivores and biodiversity more broadly. Mitigating human-predator conflict should be evidence-based and accommodate people's values while protecting carnivores. Despite much research into human and large-carnivore coexistence strategies, there have been few attempts to document the success of conflict-mitigation strategies on a global scale. We conducted a meta-analysis of global research on conflict mitigation related to large carnivores and humans. We focused on conflicts that arise from the threat large carnivores pose to livestock. We first used structured and unstructured searching to identify replicated studies that used before-after or control-impact design to measure change in livestock loss as a result of implementing a management intervention. We then extracted relevant data from these studies to calculate an overall effect size for each intervention type. Research effort and focus varied among continents and aligned with the histories and cultures that shaped livestock production and attitudes toward carnivores. Livestock guardian animals most effectively reduced livestock losses. Lethal control was the second most effective control, although its success varied the most, and guardian animals and lethal control did not differ significantly. Financial incentives have promoted tolerance of large carnivores in some settings and reduced retaliatory killings. We suggest coexistence strategies be location-specific, incorporate cultural values and environmental conditions, and be designed such that return on financial investment can be evaluated. Improved monitoring of mitigation measures is urgently required to promote effective evidence-based policy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock

Eeden

Crowther

Dickman

et al. 2017

Conservation Biology

256

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, there was a potential bias in the data in that larger packs were easier to find and document their reproduction. However, packs causing conflicts with livestock were often monitored more intensively and were more likely to be radio‐collared (Bangs et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full pack removal events included those where all pack members were killed or in a few cases, where remaining pack members disbanded and vacated the territory. In many cases nonlethal preventative methods were employed prior to and during depredations (Bangs et al ), but removal was the primary tool attempted once depredations occurred. We could not evaluate effectiveness of preventative methods, such as modification of livestock management practices, fencing, and scare devices, because of the wide diversity of methods, the inconsistency of their application, and sparse record keeping.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of wolf removal on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wolf (Canis lupus) predation on livestock and management methods used to mitigate conflicts are highly controversial and scrutinized especially where wolf populations are recovering. Wolves are commonly removed from a local area in attempts to reduce further depredations, but the effectiveness of such management actions is poorly understood. We compared the effects of 3 management responses to livestock depredation by wolf packs in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming: no removal, partial pack removal, and full pack removal. We examined the effectiveness of each management response in reducing further depredations using a conditional recurrent event model. From 1989 to 2008, we documented 967 depredations by 156 packs: 228 on sheep and 739 on cattle and other stock. Median time between recurrent depredations was 19 days following no removal (n ¼ 593), 64 days following partial pack removal (n ¼ 326), and 730 days following full pack removal (n ¼ 48; recurring depredations were made by the next pack to occupy the territory). Compared to no removal, full pack removal reduced the occurrence of subsequent depredations by 79% (hazard ratio [HR] ¼ 0.21, P < 0.001) over a span of 1,850 days (5 years), whereas partial pack removal reduced the occurrence of subsequent depredations by 29% (HR ¼ 0.71, P < 0.001) over the same period. Partial pack removal was most effective if conducted within the first 7 days following depredation, after which there was only a marginally significant difference between partial pack removal and no action (HR ¼ 0.86, P ¼ 0.07), and no difference after 14 days (HR ¼ 0.99, P ¼ 0.93). Within partial pack removal, we found no difference in depredation recurrence when a breeding female (HR ¼ 0.64, P ¼ 0.2) or !1-year-old male was removed (HR ¼ 1.0, P ¼ 0.99). The relative effect of all treatments was generally consistent across seasons (spring, summer grazing, and winter) and type of livestock. Ultimately, pack size was the best predictor of a recurrent depredation event; the probability of a depredation event recurring within 5 years increased by 7% for each animal left in the pack after the management response. However, the greater the number of wolves left in a pack, the higher the likelihood the pack met federal criteria to count as a breeding pair the following year toward population recovery goals. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

“…Around the world, conservation stakeholders test preventative, reactive and laissez-faire conflict mitigation approaches (see Shivik, 2004;Bangs et al, 2006;Linnell et al, 2012 for reviews of available tools). Conflict prevention can be more cost-effective than lethal carnivore control (McManus et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Size, shape and maintenance matter: A critical appraisal of a global carnivore conflict mitigation strategy – Livestock protection kraals in northern Botswana

Weise

Hayward

Aguirre³

et al. 2018

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fortified kraals are predator-proof enclosures designed to protect livestock at night. Globally, they show great promise in reducing depredation by carnivores, thus promoting coexistence with people. Their efficacy depends on effectiveness, durability, regular use, owner satisfaction, cost-efficiency, and design. We monitored 32 fortified kraals for 18 months in a high conflict area in northern Botswana (n=427 kraal months) where lions (Panthera leo) frequently kill cattle. Monthly kraal use was 60% and was significantly influenced by kraal type, age, and shape. When used and maintained, kraals stopped livestock depredation. Due to poor maintenance, however, kraal age had a significant, negative influence on kraal use and effectiveness, compromising sustainability and cost-effectiveness. Fortified kraals built by a non-governmental organisation cost US$1322.36 per unit (n=20) and mitigated a mean annual loss of $187.32. This suggests cost-recuperation after 7.0 years, or 2.3 times longer than observed kraal lifetime. Conversely, owner-built replicates cost $579.90 per unit (n=4), recuperating investment after 3.1years. Owner satisfaction was significantly higher for fortified kraals when compared with traditional kraals. However, owners of fortified kraals did not kraal their cattle more frequently than owners of traditional kraals. Regionally, the mean annual kraaling rate for 29 GPS-monitored cattle herds (n=3360 nights) was 40%, leaving cattle vulnerable to depredation, and highlighting the importance of promoting vigilant herding together with kraaling to prevent losses. This combination could reduce regional livestock losses by 80%, or>$38,000 annually, however, kraal fortification alone does not provide a blanket solution to carnivore conflicts in Africa's agropastoral landscapes.

show abstract

Non-Lethal and Lethal Tools to Manage Wolf-Livestock Conflict in the Northwestern United States

Cited by 25 publications

References 23 publications

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock

Effects of wolf removal on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming

Size, shape and maintenance matter: A critical appraisal of a global carnivore conflict mitigation strategy – Livestock protection kraals in northern Botswana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About