Explore the vast range of titles available.

High white-tailed deer abundance in the United States represents an ecological and human health threat. Reducing deer populations by lethal means and facilitating return of large predators are two potential, but controversial, management options. We used an online questionnaire to measure perspectives on deer management and predator return among a stratified sample of New York State residents. We found widespread acceptance (> 70%) for reducing deer populations using lethal means if doing so would reduce Lyme disease, increase forest regeneration, protect native plants and animals, and improve road safety. Acceptance for shooting more deer was unaffected by ethnicity but strongest among respondents who were older, identified as hunters or conservationists, owned more land, and considered health and safety while answering our questionnaire. Respondents who identified as animal protectionists were least accepting. Restoring regionally extirpated wolves and cougars had limited acceptance (< 30%) but was strongest among those who identified as hunters or conservationists. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, preferences for deer management or predator restoration did not differ among urban and rural respondents. This common ground needs to be reflected in deer management in the state due to legal obligations to represent interests of all residents.

Decisions on whether and how to manage introduced species can be controversial, but public attitudes towards introduced species management (ISM) are poorly understood. Despite the potential disruptive impacts of such controversies on public relations and conservation goals, decision‐makers are currently left with little information on the social acceptability of different management alternatives. To better understand the social acceptability of core features of ISM in the United States, we conducted an online experiment with vignettes describing hypothetical but realistic ISM scenarios, varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control method (mechanical, chemical and biological), risk severity (low and high) and type of non‐target risk (to humans or native species). Not surprisingly, management with low risk was most acceptable, particularly for mechanical control. In high‐risk scenarios, only mechanical control was acceptable, but only by a slim majority of respondents. Overall, chemical and biological controls showed low levels of acceptability. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in how respondents ranked risks to people and risks to native species. Beyond differences in acceptability between management factors, we also find that the acceptability of management and attitudes towards risk were associated with respondents' demographic characteristics. Policy Implications. Overall, our findings indicate that widespread acceptability of ISM should not be assumed. While management activities representing low‐risk scenarios find some support in the public, our results highlight a disconnect between the effectiveness of common management methods and their social acceptability. Our findings highlight the need for evidence‐guided ISM, which includes evidence of harmful impacts of introduced species, as well as risks and benefits of management activities, as one potential way to increase the social acceptability of non‐native species management. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Conservation ethics (i.e. moral concern for non-human organisms) are widespread, but we lack a comprehensive explanation for why people care about other species at all, and why they express strong moral concern for some species but not others. Recent theory suggests that conservation ethics might be rooted in cooperation between humans and members of other species. Building on central predictions of this eco-evolutionary theory, we conducted an online study ( N = 651) and exploratory factor analysis to develop two scales that independently measure perceived fitness interdependence (PFI) and conservation ethics. The PFI scale measures perceived shared fate as a proximate indicator of human fitness interdependence with non-human organisms (i.e. the degree to which humans and other organisms influence each other's evolutionary success, that is, survival and reproduction). We designed the conservation ethics scale to measure moral beliefs and attitudes regarding those organisms. Both scales are composed of two factors and demonstrate good internal reliability. By combining insights from various branches of the evolutionary human sciences, including evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary psychology and human behavioural ecology, we offer empirical tools to investigate eco-evolutionary foundations of conservation ethics and behaviour.

Using military‐type strategies and equipment to conserve wildlife, also known as militarized conservation, is highly contested. In sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), one acutely controversial aspect of militarized conservation is when armed rangers shoot at suspected criminals inside protected and conserved areas (PCAs). We quantified perceptions among members of eight international publics on the acceptability of this particularly contentious aspect of militarized conservation, testing whether acceptability depended on the specific crime rangers suspect people of committing. Overall, acceptability of rangers shooting at suspected criminals inside PCAs in SSA was low across all eight publics, but acceptability was generally higher among participants living further away from PCAs in SSA than those living closer to PCAs in SSA. Shooting in self‐defense and to prevent poaching were consistently most acceptable across all eight publics. Our findings contribute new comparative evidence about international public perceptions of a very sensitive aspect of PCA management in SSA. This evidence may be useful to decision‐makers balancing competing pressures to protect biodiversity, respect local values, and operate with legitimacy in an international context. Our findings are especially relevant in light of international aspirations to simultaneously increase PCAs while respecting the rights and interests of people living in high‐biodiversity areas.

ABSTRACT Ecological terms like mesopredator and mesocarnivore have distinct meanings, the former denoting trophic rank, the latter diet composition. Yet these terms are frequently conflated, leading to conceptual ambiguity. We argue for returning to original definitions and advocate for context‐sensitive, precise language to improve clarity and accuracy in scientific communication about fundamental ecological characteristics of species.

Wild deer are iconic symbols of Scotland's natural and cultural heritage, but their burgeoning populations are increasingly contributing to ecological and socio‐economic harm. In response, the Scottish Government is considering new policy measures to increase the annual deer cull. However, deer management in Scotland is deeply rooted in cultural, economic, and ecological histories and increased culling could be morally contentious. Deer management is topical and frequently in the media. Understanding whether there is a social licence to increase the cull is valuable for anticipating public responses to and the success of suggested policy reforms. We used an online experiment to test whether members of the Scottish public perceived increasing the deer cull in Scotland to be more or less socially acceptable depending on how messages are framed in mock online news articles. Drawing from frames supported by previous literature and present in national news coverage, we tested the influence of text frames (i.e. justifications for deer culling), gain/loss frames (i.e. “increasing” a positive outcome vs. “reducing the loss of” the same positive outcome), and image frames (i.e. “healthy” vs. “unhealthy” deer and setting). Participants generally perceived increasing the cull to be more acceptable than unacceptable, indicating broad public support. We found little evidence that perceptions of acceptability are sensitive to message framing. Participants were slightly more likely to perceive increasing the deer cull as more acceptable if they were shown the healthy image frame compared to the unhealthy image frame. Instead, participants' gender identity, self‐reported social identities (deer stalker, i.e. hunter, or animal protectionist), general experiences and perceptions of deer, and trust in the Scottish Government explained differences in perceptions. Policy implications. Public beliefs, knowledge, social identities, and trust in institutions can help explain why people hold different perspectives on lethal control of deer in Scotland. Engaging with these aspects could help attenuate social conflict as Scotland moves towards a more sustainable system of deer management, which will involve higher levels of culling, a controversial aspect of wildlife conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Public policy addressing biodiversity loss is most likely to be effective when it is informed by appropriate evidence and considers potential unintended consequences. We evaluate key evidence relating to the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill that was discussed in the UK Parliament between 2022 and 2024. We characterize the UK's role in international hunting trophy trade by analyzing CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) trade data for 2000–2021 and 2015–2021. For CITES‐listed species imported to/exported from the UK as hunting trophies in these periods we use data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species to determine whether hunting designated as “trophy hunting” is (i) likely a major threat contributing to species being of elevated conservation concern, (ii) likely or possibly causing localized declines, or (iii) not a threat. We then use the Red List to determine whether such hunting provides, or potentially provides, benefits for species and/or people. Finally, we evaluate the UK Government's impact assessment of the bill. In 2000–2021 an estimated 3494 hunting trophies from 73 CITES‐listed species and subspecies were exported to the UK involving an estimated 2549 whole organism equivalents (WOEs), that is, individual animals. Imports involved 158.86 ± 66.53 (mean ± SD) trophies/year (115.83 ± 32.27 WOEs/year). In 2015–2021, 79% of imports were from countries where populations of the hunted species are stable, increasing, or abundant. Legal hunting for trophies is not a major threat to any of the species or subspecies imported to the UK, but likely or possibly represents a local threat to some populations of eight species. This hunting does, or could potentially, benefit 20 species and subspecies, and people. Among other concerns, the impact assessment failed to adequately consider the costs and benefits to local communities in countries where such hunting occurs. Informed by these analyses we discuss alternative regulatory options. We use data from the CITES Trade Database and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to evaluate the merits of the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill that was discussed in the UK Parliament between 2022 and 2024. We find that the proposed legislation is disproportionate because trophy hunting is not a major threat to any species or subspecies imported to the UK as a hunting trophy in the period 2000–2021. Based on our analyses we discuss more proportionate regulatory options.

The world faces serious environmental problems. To solve them we must work together. Fortunately, humans are a very cooperative species. We have faced a range of cooperative problems in the past, and have evolved and invented a range of cooperative solutions to them—kin altruism, mutualism, reciprocity, heroism, deference, fairness, and property rights. Here, we illustrate how each of these solutions can be pressed into the service of conservation goals. Unlocking this potential will require overcoming conservationists' current cycloptic focus on only one type of cooperative problem (the prisoner's dilemma) and one type of solution (reciprocity). Only then will policy makers be able draw on the full range of cooperative dispositions and design more systematic and effective environmental interventions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised the process of identifying species and individuals in audio recordings and camera trap images. However, despite developments in sensor technology, machine learning and statistical methods, a general AI‐assisted data‐to‐inference pipeline has yet to emerge. We argue that this is, in part, due to a lack of clarity around several decisions in existing workflows, including: the choice of classifier used (e.g. semi‐ vs. fully automated); how classifier confidence scores are used and interpreted; and the availability and selection of appropriate statistical methods for drawing ecological inferences. Here, we attempt to conceptualise a general workflow associated with automated tools in ecology. We motivate this perspective using our experiences with occupancy modelling using monitoring data collected through passive acoustic monitoring and camera trapping, identifying priority areas for future developments. We offer an accessible guide to support the ecological community in navigating and capitalising on rapid technological and methodological advances. We describe how different error types arise from both sensor‐based monitoring and from classifiers themselves; how different error types are handled at each stage of the workflow; and finally, implications and opportunities associated with deciding on methods used at each step of the pipeline. We recommend that ‘black box’ tools like neural network classification algorithms should be embraced in ecology, but widespread uptake requires more formal integration of AI into the existing ecological inference workflows. Like ecological AI more broadly, however, successful development of new data‐to‐inference pipelines is a multidisciplinary endeavour that requires input from everyone invested in collecting, processing, analysing and using ecological monitoring data.

Sustainable management of wild ungulate populations is key to maintaining ecosystem health. High ungulate densities across Europe pose growing ecological, social, and economic challenges, particularly where natural predators are absent. In highland Scotland, red deer ( Cervus elaphus ) have long been managed under a landowner-led system with limited community involvement and low regulatory oversight. As Scotland seeks to deliver sustainable land management, there is increasing momentum to reduce deer impacts and enhance community participation in land and wildlife management. We explore the potential for community hunting to contribute to sustainable deer management in highland Scotland. We compare Scotland with Slovenia, a largely highland country where community-based hunting is strongly embedded culturally and in law. Reviewing literature and expert local knowledge in both countries, we use the ‘social habitat for hunting’ concept to examine macro-, meso-, micro-, and individual-level factors that shape hunting participation. Significant structural, cultural, and institutional barriers to community hunting exist in Scotland, including weak social norms and cultural legitimacy, proprietary shooting rights, weak regulatory mechanisms, and low access to and uptake of training. In contrast, Slovenia’s hunting model illustrates how integrated governance, community empowerment, and intergenerational knowledge transfer maintains sustainable community-based hunting practices. Community hunting could help to deliver sustainable deer management in highland Scotland through building a supportive social habitat.