Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses

Abstract

Variation in the legal status and management of wolves (Canis lupus) across EU Member States provides a good opportunity to test the effectiveness of different practices to reduce livestock losses. This opportunity for testing is particularly useful for lethal interventions, as they are among the most controversial actions within the large carnivore management toolbox. We aimed to test a conservation compromise adopted in Slovakia, based on a public wolf‐hunting scheme and annual hunting quotas between 2014 and 2019, and partially justified to reduce livestock losses. We assessed whether this hunting scheme influenced livestock depredation levels (at the district level). Wolves in the area fed mainly on wild ungulates (98.9% of consumed biomass). While domestic sheep comprised only 0.5% of the diet, they were dominant among the reported livestock killed by wolves (91.1%). Using two different approaches, we did not observe a relationship between the number of killed wolves and livestock losses. Alternatively, a negative relationship between wild prey biomass and livestock losses was found. Since 2021, public wolf hunting has not been conducted in Slovakia, and there is no merit in the previous justification for this conservation compromise to reduce livestock losses.

Spatio-temporal dynamics of attacks around deaths of wolves: A statistical assessment of lethal control efficiency in France

“…Five of the seven comparative studies on social canids showed that lethal control significantly decreased damage recurrence, whereas Santiago-Avila et al (2018) and Kutal et al (2023) found no significant effect of lethal control on damages. Yet, results suggested variability in the efficiency of lethal control.…”

“…damages from compensation schemes). Most of retrospective studies on social canids (gray wolves Canis lupus, dingoes Dingo dingo, coyotes Canis latrans) were correlative and tested for a relationship between the number of livestock damages and the number of killed predators (Šuba et al, 2023;Fernández-Gil et al, 2016;DeCesare et al, 2018;Conner et al, 1998;Allen, 2015;Kutal et al, 2023). However, this approach is not suited to infer causality and is subject to high risks of confounding factors and to analytical variability (Gould et al 2023).…”

“…The intra-site comparison they used, also called before-after control impact study design, intends to reduce the risks for confounding factors of inter-site comparison because these risks are generally higher across space than across time. Kutal et al (2023) was the only study to mix inter-site and intra-site comparisons, by combining comparisons before and after hunting season and between sites with and without hunted wolves.…”

“…pack territory in Bradley et al (2015)) or large scale (e.g. 711 km² in Kutal et al (2023)) could be used for space, sometimes within the same study (e.g. Santiago-Avila et al, 2018).…”

“…Blejwas et al (2002)) to two years (e.g. Kutal et al, 2023) or more (e.g. Bjorge and Gunson (1985)).…”