Explore the vast range of titles available.

Predator control policies in the United States shifted in the latter half of the 20th century, largely in response to public outcry. However, few studies have assessed attitudes toward predator control at the national level. We replicated measures from a 1995 study that assessed attitudes toward predator management in the United States. We sought to determine if public support for predator management and perceptions of the humaneness of specific management practices changed over the past 2 decades. A web-based questionnaire was used to survey a representative sample of United States residents. The survey instrument contained items designed to assess attitudes toward predator management in general and the humaneness of specific predator management practices (lethal and nonlethal). We found relatively minor shifts in attitudes toward predator management, but many of the management practices assessed were rated significantly less humane than in the previous survey. Respondents were generally supportive of predator management aimed at losses of agricultural or private property; however, nonlethal methods were perceived to be far more humane than lethal methods. Our findings suggest that the public is generally supportive of predator control, but increasingly skeptical of the methods employed in control actions.

For 90 years, the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) has made science-based challenges to widespread lethal control of native mammals, particularly by the United States federal government targeting carnivores in the western states. A consensus is emerging among ecologists that extirpated, depleted, and destabilized populations of large predators are negatively affecting the biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems. This Special Feature developed from a thematic session on predator control at ASM's 2013 annual meeting, and in it we present data and arguments from the perspectives of ecology, wildlife biology and management, social science, ethics, and law and policy showing that nonlethal methods of preventing depredation of livestock by large carnivores may be more effective, more defensible on ecological, legal, and wildlife-policy grounds, and more tolerated by society than lethal methods, and that total mortality rates for a large carnivore may be driven higher than previously assumed by human causes that are often underestimated.

Worldwide, native predators are killed to protect livestock, an action that can undermine wildlife conservation efforts and create conflicts among stakeholders. An ongoing example is occurring in the western United States, where wolves (Canis lupus) were eradicated by the 1930s but are again present in parts of their historic range. While livestock losses to wolves represent a small fraction of overall livestock mortality, the response to these depredations has resulted in widespread conflicts including significant efforts at lethal wolf control to reduce impacts on livestock producers, especially those with large-scale grazing operations on public lands. A variety of nonlethal methods have proven effective in reducing livestock losses to wolves in small-scale operations but in large-scale, open-range grazing operations, nonlethal management strategies are often presumed ineffective or infeasible. To demonstrate that nonlethal techniques can be effective at large scales, we report a 7-year case study where we strategically applied nonlethal predator deterrents and animal husbandry techniques on an adaptive basis (i.e., based on terrain, proximity to den or rendezvous sites, avoiding overexposure to techniques such as certain lights or sound devices that could result in wolves losing their fear of that device, etc.) to protect sheep (Ovis aries) and wolves on public grazing lands in Idaho. We collected data on sheep depredation mortalities in the protected demonstration study area and compared these data to an adjacent wolf-occupied area where sheep were grazed without the added nonlethal protection measures. Over the 7-year period, sheep depredation losses to wolves were 3.5 times higher in the Nonprotected Area (NPA) than in the Protected Area (PA). Furthermore, no wolves were lethally controlled within the PA and sheep depredation losses to wolves were just 0.02% of the total number of sheep present, the lowest loss rate among sheep-grazing areas in wolf range statewide, whereas wolves were lethally controlled in the NPA. Our demonstration project provides evidence that proactive use of a variety of nonlethal techniques applied conditionally can help reduce depredation on large open-range operations.

Starting in the 1970s, many populations of large-bodied mammalian carnivores began to recover from centuries of human-caused eradication and habitat destruction. The recovery of several such populations has since slowed or reversed due to mortality caused by humans. Illegal killing (poaching) is a primary cause of death in many carnivore populations. Law enforcement agencies face difficulties in preventing poaching and scientists face challenges in measuring it. Both challenges are exacerbated when evidence is concealed or ignored. We present data on deaths of 937 Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus) from October 1979 to April 2012 during a period in which wolves were recolonizing historic range mainly under federal government protection. We found and partially remedied sampling and measurement biases in the source data by reexamining necropsy reports and reconstructing the numbers and causes of some wolf deaths that were never reported. From 431 deaths and disappearances of radiocollared wolves aged > 7.5 months, we estimated human causes accounted for two-thirds of reported and reconstructed deaths, including poaching in 39–45%, vehicle collisions in 13%, legal killing by state agents in 6%, and nonhuman causes in 36–42%. Our estimate of poaching remained an underestimate because of persistent sources of uncertainty and systematic underreporting. Unreported deaths accounted for over two-thirds of all mortality annually among wolves > 7.5 months old. One-half of all poached wolves went unreported, or > 80% of poached wolves not being monitored by radiotelemetry went unreported. The annual mortality rate averaged 18% ± 10% for monitored wolves but 47% ± 19% for unmonitored wolves. That difference appeared to be due largely to radiocollaring being concentrated in the core areas of wolf range, as well as higher rates of human-caused mortality in the periphery of wolf range. We detected an average 4% decline in wolf population growth in the last 5 years of the study. Because our estimates of poaching risk and overall mortality rate exceeded official estimates after 2012, we present all data for transparency and replication. More recent additions of public hunting quotas after 2012 appear unsustainable without effective curtailment of poaching. Effective antipoaching enforcement will require more accurate estimates of poaching rate, location, and timing than currently available. Independent scientific review of methods and data will improve antipoaching policies for large carnivore conservation, especially for controversial species facing high levels of human-induced mortality.

Large predators are declining worldwide primarily due to hunting and persecution by humans, driven in large part by the livestock industry. Some ranchers are transitioning to “predator-friendly” farming by adopting nonlethal predator deterrents. On very large rangeland properties, such as the vast stations of the Australian arid zone, ending lethal control may in itself reduce livestock losses by enabling the predator's social structure to stabilize. The dingo (Canis dingo), Australia's apex predator, is commonly subjected to eradication campaigns to protect livestock. We analyzed causes of cattle (Bos taurus) deaths on Evelyn Downs, a 2,300-km2 predator-friendly station in central Australia, for 2 years after dingo protection was established. Husbandry-related challenges, associated with deteriorating environmental conditions, were the leading causes of deaths of cattle. Predation by dingoes was minor and declined as the indices of dingo abundance stabilized and social stability increased. Shifting from killing predators to improving husbandry standards is likely to improve livestock survival and welfare.

Details surrounding any particular instance of predator control are varied. Addressing the appropriateness of predator control requires attention to those details. Here, we focus on the case of wolf (Canis lupus) hunting in Michigan. In Michigan, wolves were removed from the list of United States endangered species in December 2011. By June 2013, plans had been finalized to begin hunting wolves in fall 2013. According to these plans, a purpose of the hunt was to reduce wolf abundance in particular regions of Michigan to reduce threats to livestock and human safety. Here, we evaluate those plans using 2 basic tenets of wildlife management. The 1st tenet is the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which is held in high regard by many hunting organizations, wildlife professionals, and state agencies. A central component of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is a set of 7 principles representing ideas such as that wildlife is held in the public trust, management should be based on principles of democracy and best-available science, and wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose. The 2nd tenet pertains to the ability to answer 3 fundamental questions: What is the purpose or goal of a management action? How will the management action meet the purpose or goal of the actions? Why are the purpose and goals appropriate? Plans for hunting wolves in Michigan appear not to meet the principles of either tenet. This conclusion suggests that either wolf hunting as it has been planned in Michigan is inappropriate or both sets of standards for evaluating wildlife management are inappropriate. Better understanding of issues like this will require reflecting on the fundamental nature of wildlife management and its guiding principles.