People and Predators: From Conflict to Conservation: From Conflict To Coexistence - Softcover

Defenders Of Wildlife

Softcover

ISBN 10: 1559630841 ISBN 13: 9781559630849

Publisher: Island Press, 2004

Synopsis

Carnivores provide innumerable ecological benefits and play a unique role in preserving and maintaining ecosystem services and function, but at the same time they can create serious problems for human populations. A key question for conservation biologists and wildlife managers is how to manage the world's carnivore populations to conserve this important natural resource while mitigating harmful impacts on humans. In People and Predators, leading scientists and researchers offer case studies of human-carnivore conflicts in a variety of landscapes, including rural, urban, and political. The book covers a diverse range of taxa, geographic regions, and conflict scenarios, with each chapter dealing with a specific facet of human-carnivore interactions and offering practical, concrete approaches to resolving the conflict under consideration. Chapters provide background on particular problems and describe how challenges have been met or what research or tools are still needed to resolve the conflicts. People and Predators will help readers to better understand issues of carnivore conservation in the twenty-first century, and provides practical tools for resolving many of the problems that stand between us and a future in which carnivores fulfill their historic ecological roles.

About this title

About the Author

Nina Fascione is VP, Species Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, DC

Aimee Delach is Senior Associate, Species Conservation Division, Defenders of Wildlife, DC

Martin E. Smith is Carnivore Biologist, Defenders of Wildlife, DC.

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. We focus our programs on what scientists consider two of the most serious environmental threats to the planet: the accelerating rate of extinction of species and the associated loss of biological diversity, and habitat alteration and destruction. Long known for our leadership on endangered species issues, Defenders of Wildlife also advocates new approaches to wildlife conservation that will help keep species from becoming endangered. Our programs encourage protection of entire ecosystems and interconnected habitats whi le protecting predators that serve as indicator species for ecosystem health. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a 501(c)(3) membership organization with over 460,000 members and supporters nationwide.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

People and Predators

From Conflict to Coexistence

By Nina Fascione, Aimee Delach, Martin E. Smith

ISLAND PRESS

Copyright © 2004 Defenders of Wildlife
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-55963-084-9

Contents

About Island Press, 
About Defenders of Wildlife,, 
Title Page, 
Copyright Page, 
Foreword, 
Preface, 
Introduction, 
PART 1 - Coexistence in Rural Landscapes, 
CHAPTER 1 - Minimizing Carnivore–Livestock Conflict: The Importance and Process of Research in the Search for Coexistence, 
CHAPTER 2 - Characteristics of Wolf Packs in Wisconsin: Identification of Traits Influencing Depredation, 
CHAPTER 3 - Wolves in Rural Agricultural Areas of Western North America: Conflict and Conservation, 
PART 2 - Coexistence in Developer Landscapes, 
CHAPTER 4 - Ecology and Management of Striped Skunks, Raccoons, and Coyotes in Urban Landscapes, 
CHAPTER 5 - Birds of Prey in Urban Landscapes, 
CHAPTER 6 - Challenges in Conservation of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox, 
CHAPTER 7 - Carnivore Conservation and Highways: Understanding the Relationships, Problems, and Solutions, 
CHAPTER 8 - Living with Fierce Creatures? An Overview and Models of Mammalian Carnivore Conservation, 
PART 3 - Coexistence in Political Landscapes, 
CHAPTER 9 - Dispersal and Colonization in the Florida Panther: Overcoming Landscape Barriers—Biological and Political, 
CHAPTER 10 - State Wildlife Governance and Carnivore Conservation, 
CHAPTER 11 - Conserving Mountain Lions in a Changing Landscape, 
CHAPTER 12 - Restoring the Gray Wolf to the Southern Rocky Mountains: Anatomy of a Campaign to Resolve a Conservation Issue, 
Conclusion, 
About the Editors, 
About the Contributors, 
Index, 
Island Press Board of Directors, 

CHAPTER 1

Minimizing Carnivore–Livestock Conflict: The Importance and Process of Research in the Search for Coexistence

Stewart W. Breck

Large carnivores that kill livestock can create both an economic and an emotional burden for producers. Because these acts of predation often result in deep disdain for large carnivores, and because humans who are in the profession of producing food have strong local and national political backing, finding solutions that minimize the number of livestock killed by large carnivores is a critical conservation priority. This is particularly true in areas throughout the world where the repatriation and protection of large carnivores is a priority. Unfortunately, our understanding of the biological and ecological factors that influence a carnivore's decision to kill livestock, and of alternative methods for mitigating problems, is still nascent. Attaining solutions that minimize livestock losses while maintaining carnivore populations that are sustainable and ecologically relevant (Pyare and Berger 2003) will require reliable knowledge that only well–designed and well–executed research can provide.

In this chapter I explore the importance of research in the continued effort to develop better solutions for problems between large carnivores and livestock. I begin with a brief overview of research design to help nonscientists understand the terminology of the field. I then explore a number of different research topics, from causative factors in carnivore–livestock conflict to possible ways to reduce such conflict. Each research topic stresses varying needs, such as improving research design; broadening the scope of study to include large–carnivore behavior and ecology as these relate to livestock production; and addressing how environmental characteristics affect our management tools. These are difficult arenas for research because of the inherent problems in working with carnivores, the sociopolitical aspects of carnivore–livestock conflicts, and the large scale at which researchers must ask questions. In conclusion, I suggest ways to improve the scientific process by promoting better cooperation among stakeholders, more collaboration among scientists, and the use of adaptive management.

Research Design

Research may be defined as a purposeful endeavor to attain reliable knowledge—that is, information leading to a trustworthy understanding of a phenomenon, and/or which can be used to make good decisions regarding alteration of a system to achieve a desired outcome. Often these goals involve finding cause–and–effect relationships among variables (e.g., a scare device causes carnivore behavior to be altered). Trust in the reliability of results in large part depends on how well three elements of research design (control, randomization, and replication) are incorporated into the study.

The research design that offers the most opportunity to gain reliable knowledge regarding cause–and–effect relationships is the manipulative experiment. Manipulative experiments purposefully manipulate treatment units and compare them with unmanipulated control units, randomly selecting which units will act as treatment or control, and replicating the study either internally (replication within a study) or externally (replication of an entire study).

Unfortunately, manipulative experiments are extremely difficult to perform with large endangered carnivores. In particular, the lethal removal of individuals (a manipulation) is hard to justify because of ethical concerns and practical considerations regarding species recovery. Working at large spatial scales makes manipulative experiments more difficult for many reasons, including high cost (limiting the ability to replicate); logistical difficulty (limiting the ability to set up controls); and increased environmental variability (increasing the need for replication and control). Because of these and other difficulties, wildlife researchers often perform observational studies, which do not contain manipulations and often lack critical features of sound research design. Attaining reliable knowledge is possible with observational studies, but the process takes longer and is risky in the sense that unreliable information may be attained.

The challenge then is for researchers to maximize efficiency of learning and reliability of knowledge by creatively incorporating as many features of good research design as possible. Conceptually, a great deal of progress has been made along this front by promoting such ideas as adaptive management ("learning by doing"; MacNab 1983; Walters 1997) and metareplication (external replication; Johnson 2002), topics that will be covered in more detail toward the end of the chapter.

Understanding Carnivore–Livestock Conflicts

To develop effective solutions to carnivore–livestock conflicts we must understand why large carnivores attack livestock by discerning what aspects of the predators' environment, biology, or ecology predispose them to do so. These questions require synthesizing knowledge of individual carnivore behavior, population dynamics of carnivores and their prey, and community ecology as they relate to the presence of livestock. Two research areas that begin to address these questions deal with the presence of "hot spots" and the existence of problem individuals.

Hot Spots: Why Do They Exist?

Recent studies of livestock losses to carnivores demonstrate the presence of hot spots, or small areas that have recurring attacks on livestock by carnivores (Fritts 1982; Cozza et al. 1996). For example, Stahl et al. (2001) studied lynx attacks on sheep in France and found that certain geographical areas, covering only 0.3—4.5% of the total area where attacks occurred, accounted for 33—69% of the attacks. It is unclear how ubiquitous hot spots are across carnivore species and across different ranges, and it is not clear what causes hot spots, but a better understanding of this phenomenon may be important for more effective management. A number of factors are hypothesized for causing hot spots, including individual problem predators, herding techniques, the abundance and availability of wild and domestic prey, habitat characteristics, and the abundance of predators.

Research regarding hot spots should first focus on determining their prevalence and distribution for various carnivore species in a diversity of areas. Important data are spatial location of available livestock, number of kills in particular areas, spatial location of kills, and species of carnivore responsible for kills. Attaining such data requires the skill of trained experts who are able to determine the difference between animals killed or scavenged, and to distinguish species responsible for kills. Simultaneously, personnel should collect information on site–specific characteristics (e.g., proximity to dwellings); husbandry practices (e.g., presence or absence of guard animals and methods of carcass disposal); and landscape–level characteristics (e.g., travel corridors, available cover).

Once hot spots have been identified, the next step is to determine what causes them. Mech et al. (2000) performed an analysis along these lines by comparing Minnesota farms that experience chronic wolf depredation of cattle with nearby farms without chronic problems. Of 11 farm characteristics measured, these researchers found that chronic losses occurred on larger farms, farms that had more cattle, and farms that had herds farther from human dwellings. Whether these are general patterns that hold true for other geographical areas and other species of carnivores is unknown, but further study is warranted.

Once site characteristics have been modeled for hot spots, the second step is to validate these models by performing manipulative experiments specifically designed to test each of the factors identified in the model. For example, if it is true that farms with herds farther from human dwellings experience greater losses to wolves (Mech et al. 2000), then experimentally reducing the distance of herds from human dwellings should decrease problems with wolves. To date no such manipulative studies have been performed, which may be a function of the difficulty of performing them and/or a poor understanding of which possible factors to incorporate into such a manipulative experiment.

Problem Individuals

Problem animals are those individuals that kill more livestock per encounter than other individuals within the population. Problem animals are known to exist for a wide range of carnivores, including grizzly bears (Ursus arctos; Anderson et al. 2002); coyotes (Canis latrans; Till and Knowlton 1983; Conner et al. 1998; Sacks et al. 1999a); lynx (Lynx canadensis; Stahl et al. 2002); wolverine (Gulo gulo; Landa et al. 1999); and mountain lions (Puma concolor; Rabinowitz 1986). However the causal mechanism leading to the development of problem animals is unknown.

Linnell et al. (1999) hypothesize that the development of problem individuals is primarily behavioral in nature and will occur most frequently in situations in which livestock are most intensively managed (i.e., where nonlethal tools and livestock husbandry are commonly practiced). In these areas predators must learn specialized behaviors to successfully kill livestock, which leads to a negative feedback cycle as these individuals become better at overcoming management strategies. In areas where livestock are free ranging and unattended, most individual carnivores have an equal opportunity to kill livestock, and there is no perceptual difference between natural ungulates and livestock. Most predators will kill some livestock, but no one individual will develop specialized behavior and become a problem animal (Linnell et al. 1999).

Other competing hypotheses are more simplistic, implicating adult and/or subadult males, dispersing juveniles, or territorial breeding pairs as individuals with high probabilities of becoming problem animals (Rabinowitz 1986; Sacks et al. 1999b). Finally, learning between mother and offspring and between adults in social species may play a role in the development of problem animals (Breck, pers. observ.).

These hypotheses regarding problem animals have only begun to be scrutinized systematically under controlled conditions. More research is needed to determine how ubiquitous problem individuals are within various populations and various species of carnivores. If research finds that problem individuals are common, then other questions become important, such as, How do problem individuals develop? What characteristics of the environment encourage development of problem animals? and How can we identify and manage problem animals?

Developing effective research programs that can answer questions regarding problem individuals will be very difficult, because the causal mechanisms involved in the development of livestock–killing behavior are probably complex and variable. Depending on the hypotheses being tested, information needs include detailed data on the types of prey selected by individual carnivores, knowledge of the social status of individuals, and knowledge of animal lineages. Attaining such information may prove to be very difficult because large carnivores are secretive, exist in low densities, and are hard to study. New technologies that may help answer questions regarding problem animals include sophisticated radiotelemetry and global positioning system (GPS) technology, which can reveal fine–scale movement and activity patterns (Anderson and Lindzey 2003), as well as molecular technologies that allow the identification of individual animals through DNA analysis of feces, tissue, and saliva.

But new technology cannot make up for poorly designed studies. Performing experiments with adequate replication and control will be necessary, though challenging, if we are to understand what causes the development of problem animals. Depending on the hypotheses, it may be best to first address questions in a "laboratory" setting (e.g., the USDA Wildlife Services outdoor coyote facility in Logan, Utah, and the captive wolf facilities of the Wildlife Science Center in Forest Lake, Minnesota). These captive facilities offer a greater ability to enhance research design by implementing experimental protocols and by increasing replications of a study in a controlled setting. When feasible, results learned in captive facilities should then be tested in field settings with well–designed experiments.

Research to Improve Management

Understanding what influences carnivores to attack and kill livestock will not only provide basic knowledge regarding the phenomena but also aid the development of tools and techniques that managers can use to mitigate problems. It is likely that the most significant advances will unite knowledge of livestock husbandry, technology, and carnivore behavior and ecology. But uniting these disparate fields into coherent and meaningful research studies that develop effective solutions will rely on careful consideration of research design and strong commitment by a variety of stakeholders to the process of research.

Improving Livestock Husbandry

For this chapter, livestock husbandry refers specifically to the movement and management of livestock to reduce the number killed by predators. Under this definition, common techniques of livestock husbandry include proper disposal of carcasses to prevent attracting predators; managing birthing dates so young are not born on the open range; herding vulnerable animals at night; and combining herds so livestock are not spread evenly across the landscape. In areas where large carnivore populations were extirpated, husbandry techniques (herding in particular) have been abandoned primarily because of the high cost of labor. With the reestablishment of large carnivore populations in areas throughout the world, better understanding of husbandry will be critical as the various techniques may offer effective and economically sound long–term solutions for reducing conflict in areas where livestock are free ranging.

Robel et al. (1981) evaluated the effectiveness of several husbandry methods for reducing sheep losses to coyotes by conelating the number of sheep killed to a number of factors that varied among 109 sheep producers in Kansas. Producers experienced less predation loss when they hauled away sheep carcasses, lambed during particular seasons, confined flocks of sheep to corrals, and maintained larger flock sizes. Evidence from Europe also suggests the importance of husbandry. Greater losses of livestock to carnivores occurred in Norway, where sheep were entirely free ranging and unattended, as compared with France, where livestock were constantly herded or confined at night (Stahl et al. 2001). Though these and other studies suggest husbandry can be effective for reducing conflict with carnivores, our knowledge regarding husbandry and its effectiveness with different carnivore species is still very limited (Knowlton et al. 1999).

Observational studies of kill rates on livestock in a variety of habitat types and under a variety of husbandry levels will be helpful in quantifying the problem across a range of carnivores and variety of habitats. However, because kill rates on livestock can vary spatially and temporally, combining the results of these studies to make inferences regarding husbandry techniques may be difficult to interpret. To give a better indication of the influence of husbandry on kill rates, experimental studies are needed that control for temporal and spatial variability.

An ideal study would compare carnivore kill rates on livestock from a treatment site using designated husbandry practices with a control site not utilizing such husbandry practices. Both sites would have similar wild and domestic ungulate densities, carnivore densities, and environmental characteristics. The general design of this study would then be repeated in more than one area to increase confidence in the results. Implementing such a study may be logistically impossible, but understanding the components that lead to an ideal study design can help when making decisions where one must compromise study design. It may be that husbandry practices (i.e., the treatment) could be applied at the same site and that control data (e.g., kill rates of livestock in the absence of herding) could be collected for a period of several years before and/or after treatment data (e.g., kill rates of livestock in the presence of herding).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from People and Predators by Nina Fascione, Aimee Delach, Martin E. Smith. Copyright © 2004 Defenders of Wildlife. Excerpted by permission of ISLAND PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Island Press
• Publication date: 2004
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 1559630841
• ISBN 13: 9781559630849
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 304
• Editor: Fascione Nina, Delach Aimee, Smith Martin