Wolf (Canis lupus) Predation Impacts on Livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and Implications for Compensation Ratios

Steele, Jordan R.; Rashford, Benjamin S.; Foulke, Thomas; Tanaka, John; Taylor, David T.

doi:10.2111/rem-d-13-00031.1

Cited by 43 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, predators could have a greater effect on prey demography through fear than through direct consumption of individual prey (Preisser et al 2005). For livestock on rangelands the indirect effects of predators are likely to include decreased conception rates and weaning weights (Howery and DeLiberto 2004;Steele et al 2013). On the other hand, apex predators dominate intraguild relations (Palomares and Caro 1999;Caro and Stoner 2003) such that a collapse in an apex predator population typically results in the phenomenon of mesopredator release (Prugh et al 2009;Ritchie and Johnson 2009), which can have negative implications for biodiversity conservation (Johnson et al 2006).…”

Section: Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the Livestock–Wildlife Interface on Rangelands

Toit

Cross

Valeix

2017

Springer Series on Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On rangelands the livestock-wildlife interface is mostly characterized by management actions aimed at controlling problems associated with competition, disease, and depredation. Wildlife communities (especially the large vertebrate species) are typically incompatible with agricultural development because the opportunity costs of wildlife conservation are unaffordable except in arid and semiarid regions. Ecological factors including the provision of supplementary food and water for livestock, together with the persecution of large predators, result in livestock replacing wildlife at biomass densities far exceeding those of indigenous ungulates. Diseases are difficult to eradicate from free-ranging wildlife populations and so veterinary controls usually focus on separating commercial livestock herds from wildlife. Persecution of large carnivores due to their depredation of livestock has caused the virtual eradication of apex predators from most rangelands. However, recent research points to a broad range of solutions to reduce conflict at the livestock-wildlife interface. Conserving wildlife bolsters the adaptive capacity of a rangeland by providing stakeholders with options for dealing with environmental change. This is contingent upon local communities being empowered to benefit directly from their wildlife resources within a management framework that integrates land-use sectors at the landscape scale. As rangelands undergo irreversible changes caused by species invasions and climate forcings, the future perspective favors a proactive shift in attitude towards the livestock-wildlife interface, from problem control to asset management.

show abstract

Section: Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing the Livestock–Wildlife Interface on Rangelands

Toit

Cross

Valeix

2017

Springer Series on Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conflict mitigation requires understanding how multiple factors interact in influencing livestock predation rates and the human-wolf conflict; factors such as the ecology and behavior of wolves (Mech and Boitani 2010), livestock attributes and handling (Mech et al 2000), wild prey availability (Meriggi et al 2011), costs for rural economies (Steele et al 2013), compensation and subsidy schemes , human attitudes (Stronen et al 2007), human-caused mortality (Wielgus and Peebles 2014), or even political interests (Chapron and López-Bao 2014). But wolf management should also integrate those policies with potential to affect all of the abovementioned factors, such as environmental and agriculture policies in Europe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect effects of changes in environmental and agricultural policies on the diet of wolves

Llaneza

López‐Bao

2015

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policies have the potential to affect human-wildlife coexistence. However, despite consequences being evident beforehand or emerging soon after their implementation, potential conflicts between policies and biodiversity conservation are not always easy to predict. Wolves feeding on anthropogenic food sources (AFS) usually fall into conflict with humans, mainly due to predation on livestock. But the availability of AFS can be influenced by different policies leading to diet shifts, which could trigger new conflicts or exacerbate existing ones. Here, we show a long-term shift in the diet of wolves in northwestern Iberia over the last three decades and discuss its potential connection to changes in sanitary, environmental, and socioeconomic policies. Wolves persisted for a long time due to the activity of humans with AFS accounting for >94 % of their diet. Our results suggest a connection between a diet shift in wolves and changes in policies, from a broad diet including more feedlot (pigs, chickens) and medium-sized (goats and dogs) species, mainly in the form of carrion, to a more narrow diet based primarily on large domestic ungulates (cattle and horses). We discuss the potential implications of the observed shift in the diet of wolves on human-wolf conflicts. We also call attention on the pressing need to integrate policies into biodiversity conservation to anticipate future conservation and management dilemmas.

show abstract

“…One reason for this can be the relatively recent focus on predation in these countries around national parks or animal refuges (Mishra 1997;Butler 2000;Rao et al 2002;Madhusudan 2003;Ikeda 2004;Michalski et al 2006;Gusset et al 2009;Tamang and Baral 2008;Abay et al 2011). A few of the studies on costs of livestock predation estimate both direct and indirect costs and show that the indirect cost can be of similar magnitude of order as the direct cost (Howery and DeLiberto 2004;Laporte et al 2010;Steele et al 2013;Ramler et al 2014). Schwabe et al (2001); the seven other studies are found in Häggmark-Svensson et al 2015h 2 studies on upland game (rabbit, pheasant, quail, grouse, wild turkey, and dove), 1 each on all and big game i All game j The value of an increase in the probability of bagging a deer by 1%…”

Section: Costs Of Wildlifementioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of wildlife management—an overview

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study makes an explorative overview on two main research topics in economics of wildlife management: determination of population sizes and policy design. The results point out a large and comprehensive research on each of these issues, in particular on the estimation of values and costs of wildlife, where this information is necessary for the determination of population size. A drawback is that most of the value and cost studies do not relate their estimates to wildlife population size, which limits their usability for efficient policy design. Most valuation studies estimate the recreational value of hunting, which can range between 13 and 545 USD/hunting day (in 2013 prices), and two thirds of the included studies have been applied to wildlife in the USA. A majority of the studies on the costs of wildlife management calculate losses from carnivore predation on livestock and ungulate damage to crops, while a few consider dispersal of diseases and the cost of traffic collisions. Unlike valuation studies, several of the cost estimates apply to wildlife in developing and emerging economies. With respect to policy design the literature, which is mainly theoretical, suggests economic incentives for conflict resolution, where those suffering from wildlife damages are compensated for their losses. However, there are some issues which remain to be addressed by economists: relating costs and benefits to wildlife populations; estimating values and costs of wildlife in developing countries; evaluating wildlife policies in practice; addressing implications of uncertainty in population size, costs, and benefits for policy design; and estimating transaction costs for implementation and enforcement of wildlife policies.

show abstract

Wolf (Canis lupus) Predation Impacts on Livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and Implications for Compensation Ratios

Cited by 43 publications

References 17 publications

Managing the Livestock–Wildlife Interface on Rangelands

Managing the Livestock–Wildlife Interface on Rangelands

Indirect effects of changes in environmental and agricultural policies on the diet of wolves

Economics of wildlife management—an overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About