Reply to comments by Olson
            <i>et al</i>
            . 2017 and Stien 2017

Chapron, Guillaume; Treves, Adrian

doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1743

Cited by 14 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The decrease we found in the incidence of reported poaching during liberalized killing policy periods might be interpreted as consistent with the 'tolerance hunting' hypothesis, which suggests that some lethal predator control may increase tolerance for the species and thus reduce poaching 17,18 . However, we cannot distinguish changes in reporting from changes in poaching with these data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Our third covariate had three levels for periods with different methods of censusing wolves (method_change). In the winter of 1994-1995 the wolf census methods changed, and did so again sometime between summer 2000 and winter 2003-2004, with changes in monitoring techniques and protocols for data handling 18,23 . Those changes affected effort and training of wolf census-takers, so might have affected the detection and monitoring effort for collared wolves also.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A long-held assumption has been that some predator control (e.g. : special permits for killing or hunting seasons) might increase tolerance for controversial species and thus reduce poaching; a claim first argued in a legal brief by the U.S. government in 2006 (Humane Society of US v. Kempthorne, docket DC 06-1279) and articulated as a scientific hypothesis in 17 , and later developed and renamed ‘tolerance hunting’ 18 – 20 . In Wisconsin, USA a series of studies have taken up the question using mortality data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One early study examined reported poaching variation 21 to hypothesize that frustration with inconsistent management may lead to increased poaching, and colleagues modeled wolf demographic parameters in relation to policy changes (for others, see 22 ). However, these studies provide weak inference due to several shortcomings: reliance on correlative analyses, failure to consider cryptic poaching, plus unresolved concerns about modelling of density-dependence and its potential confounding effects of various changes in monitoring methods entangled with so-called 'recovery periods' 18,23 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA

Santiago‐Ávila

Chappell

Treves

2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although poaching (illegal killing) is an important cause of death for large carnivores globally, the effect of lethal management policies on poaching is unknown for many populations. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed: liberalizing killing may decrease poaching incidence ('tolerance hunting') or increase it ('facilitated poaching'). for gray wolves in Wisconsin, USA, we evaluated how five causes of death and disappearances of monitored, adult wolves were influenced by policy changes. We found slight decreases in reported wolf poaching hazard and incidence during six liberalized killing periods, but that was outweighed by larger increases in hazard and incidence of disappearance. Although the observed increase in the hazard of disappearance cannot be definitively shown to have been caused by an increase in cryptic poaching, we discuss two additional independent lines of evidence making this the most likely explanation for changing incidence among n = 513 wolves' deaths or disappearances during 12 replicated changes in policy. Support for the facilitated poaching hypothesis suggests the increase (11-34%) in disappearances reflects that poachers killed more wolves and concealed more evidence when the government relaxed protections for endangered wolves. We propose a refinement of the hypothesis of 'facilitated poaching' that narrows the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms underlying wolf-killing. Globally, loss of large predators has contributed to simplification of trophic structures, lower biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem functions 1-3. It is widely acknowledged that humans are responsible for more large carnivore deaths than any other cause 4 , although the scientific debate about the sustainability of this killing remains far from settled for many large carnivore populations 3,5,6. Many policies for large carnivores focus on limiting or regulating human-caused mortality, and many management decisions rely on estimates of human-caused mortality and on understanding the policy effects on such mortality. Therefore, biased estimates of human-caused mortality patterns can undermine policy goals and evaluations (e.g., recolonization by endangered species, restoring ecosystem processes), and harm carnivore population recovery or stability 5-7. More broadly, accurate estimates of policy effects on illegal killing ('poaching' hereafter) of wild animals can improve enforcement of laws for nature protection and adherence to national and international treaties relating to the protection or the restoration of endangered species, ecosystems, biodiversity, and interdiction of unregulated wildlife trade. Of all direct killing by humans, poaching is the primary cause of death in many carnivore populations 5,8-11 , slowing population growth 12-14 or hindering recolonization of historic range 8,10. Poaching is extremely difficult to detect, measure and prevent. Given its illegal nature, poachers often conceal evidence from management authorities tasked with monitoring marked animals. When authorities find the bod...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA

Santiago‐Ávila

Chappell

Treves

2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…); the common hypothesis is that predator populations benefit indirectly when people kill a minority of them because then people tolerate the survivors better or revenue flows to direct conservation (Loveridge et al. ; Treves ; Treves & Bruskotter ; Chapron & Treves ; Macdonald et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%