Pathways towards coexistence with large carnivores in production systems

Abstract

Coexistence between livestock grazing and carnivores in rangelands is a major challenge in terms of sustainable agriculture, animal welfare, species conservation and ecosystem function. Many effective non-lethal tools exist to protect livestock from predation, yet their adoption remains limited. Using a social-ecological transformations framework, we present two qualitative models that depict transformative change in rangelands grazing. Developed through participatory processes with stakeholders from South Africa and the United States of America, the models articulate drivers of change and the essential pathways to transition from routine lethal management of carnivores towards mutually beneficial coexistence. The pathways define broad actions that incorporate multiple values in grazing systems including changes to livestock management practices, financial support, industry capacity building, research, improved governance and marketing initiatives. A key finding is the new concept of 'Predator Smart Farming', a holistic and conscientious approach to agriculture, which increases the resilience of landscapes, animals (domesticated and wild) and rural livelihoods. Implementation of these multiple pathways would lead to a future system that ensures thriving agricultural communities, secure livelihoods, reduced violence toward animals, and landscapes that are productive and support species conservation and coexistence.

Assessment of leopard translocations in South Africa

“…We suggest the development of basic standardized operational translocation protocols (see the Box 1) as a starting point to address this challenge. First, the use of non-lethal techniques mitigates HCC by effectively reducing livestock losses, increasing tolerance and co-existence (McManus et al, 2015;Treves et al, 2016;Khorozyan and Waltert, 2021;Boronyak et al, 2022), and should always be advocated for and employed prior to any translocations. Increased tolerance, awareness, and building trust with the local community are key to mitigating HCC (Bennett et al, 2017;Boronyak et al, 2022;Consorte-McCrea et al, 2022).…”

“…First, the use of non-lethal techniques mitigates HCC by effectively reducing livestock losses, increasing tolerance and co-existence (McManus et al, 2015;Treves et al, 2016;Khorozyan and Waltert, 2021;Boronyak et al, 2022), and should always be advocated for and employed prior to any translocations. Increased tolerance, awareness, and building trust with the local community are key to mitigating HCC (Bennett et al, 2017;Boronyak et al, 2022;Consorte-McCrea et al, 2022). Second, to avoid translocating non-culprit animals, the specific individual should be identified and confirmed to be a DCA (i.e., via a camera trap survey, carcass evaluations, and/or GPS tracking).…”

Coexistence Praxis: The Role of Resource Managers in Wolf-Livestock Interactions on Federal Lands

“…In our research, we draw these insights together with more recent work on critical physical geography (Lave et al, 2014(Lave et al, , 2018 to consider in greater depth those in the position to manage conflict and define, practice, and promote or hinder coexistence. In this, we extend political ecology's traditional engagement with the dynamics of resource users (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987) by reorienting attention onto resource managers. In addition to providing a novel perspective on wolflivestock conflict, this focus also reflects important aspects of the authors' positionality: a team of critically-trained social scientists who are also professional researchers, academics, and agency affiliates with long-standing engagement in resource management issues across the study region.…”

“…Such efforts lean heavily on deterrents aimed at preventing depredation, frequently positioned as "nonlethal alternatives" to the lethal control of "problem individuals." While these tools and techniques are often described as "straightforward" (Western Wildlife Outreach, 2014), questions remain around their effectiveness and associated costs (on the efficacy and ethics of lethal vs. nonlethal wildlife management, see Miller et al, 2016;Eklund et al, 2017;DeCesare et al, 2018;Lennox et al, 2018;Moreira-Arce et al, 2018;van Eeden et al, 2018;Treves et al, 2019;Gamborg et al, 2020;Boronyak et al, 2021).…”

Low-stress livestock handling protects cattle in a five-predator habitat

“…It has resulted in ecosystem degradation 2 , and extinctions of many populations 1,2 . Success in preserving carnivore populations depends on converting competition over land and resources from lethal to non-lethal 1,[3][4][5][6] . Coexistence with bears and wolves in North America is a timely challenge given the protected status of these populations in some jurisdictions and the societal support for livestock grazing on public lands.…”