Explore the vast range of titles available.

The conflict between predators and livestock farmers is a threat to carnivore conservation. Livestock guarding dogs are promoted as a non-lethal, environmentally friendly method to mitigate this conflict. As part of a farmer–carnivore conflict mitigation programme, the Cheetah Conservation Fund breeds Anatolian shepherd (also known as Kangal) dogs to protect livestock from predators. During 2009–2010 we interviewed 53 commercial and 20 subsistence Namibian farmers that are using 83 such dogs. Fewer commercial and subsistence farmers reported livestock losses to predators during the most recent year of guarding-dog use compared to the year before dogs were introduced. All subsistence farmers, but not all commercial farmers, ceased killing predators during the most recent year of guarding-dog use. All farmers ceased killing cheetah Acinonyx jubatus and leopard Panthera pardus during this year, and one dog killed a single cheetah. Conversely, dogs and farmers killed more black-backed jackals Canis mesomelas between them in the survey year than the farmers reported killing in the year before acquiring dogs. Two of the dogs reportedly killed non-target carnivore species, and 15 killed prey species. Thus our results challenge the categorization of livestock guarding dogs as a non-lethal conflict mitigation method. We suggest that the conservation status and body size of wild carnivores relative to the size of the guarding dogs be considered before introducing dogs to protect livestock. Additionally, corrective training for dogs that chase or kill non-target species should be implemented, especially where farmers value these species or where non-target species are threatened.

I argue that the terms lethal control, nonlethal control, and live trap are no longer sufficiently precise for continued use in the scientific community. Their continued use confuses the public and allows animal protectionists to use them as cudgels in political discourse. Alternative terms are recommended to resolve the semantic and subsequent political issues surrounding the traditional terms.

Large carnivores are persecuted globally because they threaten human industries and livelihoods. How this conflict is managed has consequencesfor the conservation of large carnivores and biodiversity more broadly. Mitigating human-predator conflict should be evidence-based and accommodate people's values while protecting carnivores. Despite much research into human and large-carnivore coexistence strategies, there have been few attempts to document the success of conflict-mitigation strategies on a global scale. We conducted a meta-analysis of global research on conflict mitigation related to large carnivores and humans. We focused on conflicts that arise from the threat large carnivores pose to livestock. We first used structured and unstructured searching to identify replicated studies that used before-after or control-impact design to measure change in livestock loss as a result of implementing a management intervention. We then extracted relevant data from these studies to calculate an overall effect sizefor each intervention type. Research effort and focus varied among continents and aligned with the histories and cultures that shaped livestock production and attitudes toward carnivores. Livestock guardian animals most effectively reduced livestock losses. Lethal control was the second most effective control, although its success varied the most, and guardian animals and lethal control did not differ significantly. Financial incentives have promoted tolerance of large carnivores in some settings and reduced retaliatory killings. We suggest coexistence strategies be locationspecific, incorporate cultural values and environmental conditions, and be designed such that return on financial investment can be evaluated. Improved monitoring of mitigation measures is urgently required to promote effective evidence-based policy. Los carnívoros grandes son perseguidos en todo el mundo porque amenazan el sustento y las industrias humanas. En general, la forma en que se maneja este conflicto tiene consecuencias para la conservación de los grandes carnívoros y la biodiversidad. La mitigación del conflicto humano - fauna debería tener bases en las evidencias y debería acomodarse a los valores de las personas mientras protege a los carnívoros. A pesar de la amplia investigación sobre las estrategias de coexistencia entre humanos y carnívoros grandes, ha habido pocos intentos por documentar el éxito de las estrategias mitigantes del conflicto en una escala global. Realizamos un meta-análisis de la investigación global sobre la mitigación de conflictos relacionados con los carnívoros grandes y los humanos. Nos enfocamos en los conflictos que surgen de la amenaza que los carnívoros grandes presentan para el ganado. Primero utilizamos búsquedas estructuradas y no-estructuradas para identificar los estudios replicados que utilizaron el diseño antes - después o control - impacto para medir el cambio en la pérdida del ganado como resultado de la implementación de una intervención de manejo. Después extrajimos los datos relevantes de estos estudios para calcular un tamaño general de efecto para cada tipo de intervención. El esfuerzo y el enfoque de la investigación variaron entre los continentes y se alinearon con las historias y culturas que dieron forma a la producción ganadera y a las actitudes hacia los carnívoros. Los animales guardianes del ganado fueron los que redujeron con mayor eficiencia las pérdidas del ganado. El control letal fue el segundo control más efectivo, aunque su éxito fue el que más varió, y los animales guardianes y el control letal no difirieron significativamente. Los incentivos económicos han promovido la tolerancia de los carnívoros grandes en algunas localidades y han reducido las muertes por represalia. Sugerimos que las estrategias de coexistencia sean específicas de la localidad, incorporen los valores culturales y las condiciones ambientales, y estén diseñadas de tal forma que el retorno de una inversión financiera pueda ser evaluado. El monitoreo mejorado de las medidas de mitigación es requerido urgentemente para promover la política efectiva basada en evidencias.

Mitigation of large carnivore depredation is essential to increasing stakeholder support for human–carnivore coexistence. Lethal and non-lethal techniques are implemented by managers, livestock producers, and other stakeholders to reduce livestock depredations by large carnivores. However, information regarding the relative effectiveness of techniques commonly used to reduce livestock depredations is currently lacking. We evaluated 66 published, peer-reviewed research papers that quantitatively measured livestock depredation before and after employing 4 categories of lethal and non-lethal mitigation techniques (livestock husbandry, predator deterrents and removal, and indirect management of land or wild prey) to assess their relative effectiveness as livestock protection strategies. Effectiveness of each technique was measured as the reported percent change in livestock losses. Husbandry (42–100% effective) and deterrents (0–100% effective) demonstrated the greatest potential but also the widest variability in effectiveness in reducing livestock losses. Removal of large carnivores never achieved 100% effectiveness but exhibited the lowest variation (67–83%). Although explicit measures of effectiveness were not reported for indirect management, livestock depredations commonly decreased with sparser and greater distances from vegetation cover, at greater distances from protected areas, and in areas with greater wild prey abundance. Information on time duration of effects was available only for deterrents; a tradeoff existed between the effectiveness of tools and the length of time a tool remained effective. Our assessment revealed numerous sources of bias regarding the effectiveness of techniques as reported in the peer-reviewed literature, including a lack of replication across species and geographic regions, a focus on Canid carnivores in the United States, Europe, and Africa, and a publication bias toward studies reporting positive effects. Given these limitations, we encourage managers and conservationists to work with livestock producers to more consistently and quantitatively measure and report the impacts of mitigation techniques under a wider range of environmental, economic, and sociological conditions.

Livestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than non-lethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally. We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public. La conservación compasiva se enfoca en cuatro principios: no causar daño; los individuos importan; la integración de los animales individualmente; y la coexistencia pacífica entre los humanos u los animales. Recientemente, la conservación compasiva ha sido promovida como una alternativa a la filosofía convencional de la conservación. Creemos que los ejemplos presentados por los conservacionistas compasivos han sido elegidos arbitraria o deliberadamente por estar enfocados en los mamíferos; por ser inherentes y no compasivos; y por ofrecer soluciones de conservación poco efectivas. La conservación compasiva se enfoca arbitrariamente en las especies carismáticas, principalmente los grandes depredadores y los megaherbívoros. La filosofía no es compasiva cuando deja que los depredadores invasores dentro del ambiente causen daño a un vasto número de individuos nativos o usa el miedo al daño por superdepredadores para aterrorizar a los mesodepredadores. El entorpecimiento del control de especies exóticas (megafauna, depredadores) in situ no mejorará las condiciones de conservación de la mayoría de la biodiversidad, incluso si los conservacionistas compasivos no dañan a los individuos exóticos. Las posiciones que toman los llamados conservacionistas compasivos sobre especies particulares y sobre las acciones de conservación podrían extenderse para entorpecer otros tipos de conservación, incluyendo las reubicaciones, el encercado para la conservación yel control de la fertilidad. El bienestar animal es increíblemente importante para la conservación e irónicamente, la conservación compasiva no ofrece los mejores resultados de bienestar para los animales y comúnmente es poco efectiva en el logro de los objetivos de conservación. Como consecuencia, la conservación compasiva puede poner en peligro el apoyo público y del gobierno que tiene la conservación debido al entendimiento poco limitado que tiene el público general sobre los problemas de conservación. 同理心保护注重四项原则: 不制造伤害、心系每一条生命、不排斥每ー种动物，以及人与动物和平共处。 目前，同理心保护已经被推崇为传统保护哲学的替代选择。然而，我们认为同理心保护主义者有意或武断地挑选 了哺乳动物作为范例，这在本质上并不具备同理心，且他们提供的保护方案也不实际。同理心保护常常不加判断 地只关注明星物种，尤其是大型食肉动物和食草动物;若是保留环境中的入侵食肉动物，从而对原生种造成巨大 伤害，抑或是利用顶级捕食者来威慑中等食肉动物，这样的保护理念实际上都没有同理心。即便同理心保护主义 者没有直接伤害外来物种的个体，阻止对外来物种（大型动物、食肉动物) 的就地种群控_ ，也不能改善组成生 物多祥性的大部分物种的保护情況。所谓的同理心保护主义者对特定物种或是特定保护行动所采取的立场，甚 至会阻碍其它形式的保护，如迁地保护、围栏保护和繁殖控制等。动物福利对保护极为重要，然而讽刺的是，同 理心保护不仅没有给动物提供最优的福利条件，还通常不利于实现保护目标。因此，鉴于公众对保护问题的认知 有限同理心保护可能会威胁到公众和政府对保护的支持。

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.

I argue that the terms lethal control, nonlethal control, and live trap are no longer sufficiently precise for continued use in the scientific community. Their continued use confuses the public and allows animal protectionists to use them as cudgels in political discourse. Alternative terms are recommended to resolve the semantic and subsequent political issues surrounding the traditional terms.

Measuring rates and causes of mortalities is important in animal ecology and management. Observing the fates of known individuals is a common method of estimating life history variables, including mortality patterns. It has long been assumed that data lost when known animals disappear were unbiased. We test and reject this assumption under conditions common to most, if not all, studies using marked animals. We illustrate the bias for 4 endangered wolf populations in the United States by reanalyzing data and assumptions about the known and unknown fates of marked wolves to calculate the degree to which risks of different causes of death were mismeasured. We find that, when using traditional methods, the relative risk of mortality from legal killing measured as a proportion of all known fates was overestimated by 0.05–0.16 and the relative risk of poaching was underestimated by 0.17–0.44. We show that published government estimates are affected by these biases and, importantly, are underestimating the risk of poaching. The underestimates have obscured the magnitude of poaching as the major threat to endangered wolf populations. We offer methods to correct estimates of mortality risk for marked animals of any taxon and describe the conditions under which traditional methods produce more or less bias. We also show how correcting past and future estimates of mortality parameters can address uncertainty about wildlife populations and increase the predictability and sustainability of wildlife management interventions.