Search

Numerous studies report majorities of survey respondents hold positive attitudes toward wolves. However, a 2001–2009 panel study found declining tolerance of wolves among residents of Wisconsin’s wolf range. Poaching, believed to be increasing, has been an important source of mortality in Wisconsin’s wolf population since the 1980s. We conducted focus groups, with an accompanying anonymous questionnaire survey of participants, among farmers and hunters in Wisconsin’s wolf range to gain a more in-depth understanding of attitudes towards wolves and inclinations to poach wolves. Whereas our study was originally designed to examine the effects of an experimental lethal-control program on inclination to poach, oscillating wolf-management authority shifted our focus from a single intervention to a suite of changes in policy and management. Following federal delisting of the Western Great Lakes wolf population in January 2012, Wisconsin implemented lethal-depredation control and created the state’s first legalized wolf-harvest season in October 2012. We convened focus groups before and after these changes. Pre- and post-survey results showed majorities of respondents held negative attitudes toward wolves with no decrease in inclination to poach, suggesting lethal-control measures, in the short term, may be ineffective for increasing tolerance. Participants expressed favorable attitudes toward lethal-control measures, but believed there were limitations in the implementation of the lethal-control measures. Focus group discussions revealed elements of positivity toward wolves not revealed by questionnaires, as well as several thematic areas, such as fear, empowerment, and trust, that may inform the development of interventions designed to increase tolerance of wolves and other controversial species.

SUMMARYIn many areas, wildlife managers are turning to hunting programmes to increase public acceptance of predators. This study examines attitudes measured before and after a hunting and trapping season (wolf hunt) in Wisconsin (WI), USA, and casts some doubt on whether such programmes actually promote public acceptance. In Wisconsin, attitudes toward wolves (Canis lupus) were recorded before and after the inaugural regulated wolf hunt. Measuring longitudinal changes is particularly important in assessing management interventions. The attitudes of 736 previous respondents were resampled in 2013. Changes in individual responses to statements about emotions, behavioural intentions, beliefs, and attitudes toward wolves and wolf management between 2009 and 2013 were assessed using a nine-item scaled variable called ‘tolerance’. Although the majority (66%) of wolf range respondents approved of the decision to hold the hunt, the results indicate a negative trend in attitudes toward wolves among male respondents and hunters living in wolf range, both before and after the state's first legal hunt, suggesting that hunting was not associated with an increase in tolerance for the species after one year. Tolerance levels among female respondents remained stable throughout the study period.

Ramon & Cajal research contract from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (grant number RYC-2015-18932), Van Eeden, Lily M., Eklund, Ann, Miller,Jennifer R. B., López Bao, José Vicente, Chapron, Guillaume, Cejtin, Mikael R., Crowther, Mathew S., Dickman, Christopher R., Frank, Jens, Krofe, Miha, Macdonald, David W., McManus, Jeannine, Meyer, Tara K., Middleton, Arthur D., Newsome, Thomas M., Ripple, William J., Ritchie, Euan G., Schmitz, Oswald J., Stoner, kelly J., Tourani, Mahdieh, Treves, Adrian

Here, we make available basic sample code for the statistical survival analyses employed in our manuscript. This code should allow for replication of analyses at all spatial scales for all datasets involved. This sample code does not include code lines for dropping or adding observations, which we did for the alternate datasets used. However, this should only involve basic coding, and descriptions of observations included or dropped for each dataset can be found in the study.

Large carnivores, such as wolves Canis lupus, are difficult to protect in mixed-use landscapes because some people perceive them as dangerous and because they sometimes threaten human property and safety. Governments may respond by killing carnivores in an effort to prevent repeated conflicts or threats, although the functional effectiveness of lethal methods has long been questioned. We evaluated two methods of government intervention following independent events of verified wolf predation on domestic animals (depredation) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA between 1998-2014, at three spatial scales. We evaluated two intervention methods using log- rank tests and conditional Cox recurrent event, gap time models based on retrospective analyses of the following quasi-experimental treatments: (1) selective killing of wolves by trapping near sites of verified depredation, and (2) advice to owners and haphazard use of non-lethal methods without wolf-killing. The government did not randomly assign treatments with a pseudo-control (no removal of wolves was not a true control), but the federal permission to intervene lethally was granted and rescinded independent of events on the ground. Hazard ratios suggest lethal intervention was associated with a statistically insignificant 27% lower risk of recurrence of events at trapping sites, but offset by a similar 22% statistically insignificant increase in risk of recurrence at sites up to 5.42 km distant in the same year, compared to the non-lethal pseudo-control. Our results do not support the hypothesis that Michigan's use of lethal intervention after wolf depredations was effective for reducing the future risk of recurrence in the vicinities of trapping sites. Examining only the sites of intervention seems incomplete because neighbors of trapping sites may suffer the recurrence of depredations. We propose two new hypotheses for perceived effectiveness: (a) killing predators may be perceived as effective because of the benefits to a small minority of farmers, and (b) if neighbors experience displaced depredations, they may perceive the problem growing and then demand more lethal intervention rather than detecting the apparent displacement of wolves and problems from the first trapping site. Ethical wildlife management guided by the 'best available scientific and commercial data available' would suggest suspending the standard method of trapping wolves in favor of non-lethal methods (livestock guarding dogs or fladry) that have been proven effective in preventing livestock losses in Michigan. Here, we make available our protocol for our statistical survival analysis, in the form of sample STATA Code, for easier replication of the statistical analyses of our study.

Fundamental components of science are often lacking in U.S. state and Canadian provincial hunt management systems., Resource management agencies commonly defend controversial policy by claiming adherence to science-based approaches. For example, proponents and practitioners of the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” which guides hunting policy across much of the United States and Canada, assert that science plays a central role in shaping policy. However, what that means is rarely defined. We propose a framework that identifies four fundamental hallmarks of science relevant to natural resource management (measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review) and test for their presence in hunt management plans created by 62 U.S. state and Canadian provincial and territorial agencies across 667 management systems (species-jurisdictions). We found that most (60%) systems contained fewer than half of the indicator criteria assessed, with more criteria detected in systems that were peer-reviewed, that pertained to “big game,” and in jurisdictions at increasing latitudes. These results raise doubt about the purported scientific basis of hunt management across the United States and Canada. Our framework provides guidance for adopting a science-based approach to safeguard not only wildlife but also agencies from potential social, legal, and political conflict.

Risk maps are spatial models of environmental hazards such as predation on livestock. We tested the long-term validity of a published risk map built from locations where Wisconsin wolves attacked livestock from 1999-2006. Using data collected after model construction, we verified the predictive accuracy of the risk map exceeded 91% for the period 2007-2011. Predictive power lasting 5 years or more substantiates the claim that risk maps are both valid and verified tools for anticipating spatial hazards. Classification errors coincided with verifier uncertainty about which wolves might be responsible. Perceived threats by wolves to domestic animals were not as well predicted (82%) as verified attacks had been and errors in classification coincided with incidents involved domestic animals other than bovids and verifier uncertainty about which wolves were involved. We recommend risk maps be used to target interventions selectively at high-risk sites.

In their Letter “Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity” (30 August, p. [874][1]), A. Dickman et al. argue that banning trophy hunting would be detrimental to conservation. We agree that evidence for effectiveness is important before actions are taken. However, Dickman et al. do not provide evidence that bans to trophy hunting harm biodiversity ([ 1 ][2]). Dickman et al. claim that trophy hunting indirectly benefits biodiversity because populations (and their habitats) are better protected in places or times where trophy hunting has occurred. However, no comprehensive research has tested that hypothesis. Even previous work by Letter authors Dickman and Johnson (led by Macdonald) concludes that we know too little to infer whether trophy hunting (selective hunting for recreation) contributes to the conservation of wild lions ([ 2 ][3])—one of the best-studied trophy-hunted species. Dickman et al. overstate their case. For example, the claim that “more land has been conserved under trophy hunting than under national parks” seems based on the statement from Lindsey et al. ([ 3 ][4]) that “[o]ver 1,394,000 km2 is used for hunting in sub-Saharan Africa, exceeding the area encompassed by national parks by 22% in the countries where hunting is permitted” ([ 3 ][4]). However, this interpretation is misleading because those lands include private lands, protected areas that allowed subsistence hunting, and various other classes of protected areas, not exclusively trophy hunting concessions. In addition, the authors' prediction that a ban on trophy imports or hunts would indirectly harm biodiversity could be just the converse: Perhaps hunting concessions would be upgraded in protection by catalyzing a governmental rethinking of carnivore management systems. An evidentiary basis for informing controversial policy interventions, such as trophy hunting, demands strong inference with full disclosure of uncertainties and disentangled value judgments from observations or inferences. Stronger evidence might be gleaned through adequate tests of the effectiveness of trophy hunting for protecting the hunted population, including broad-scale experiments using multiple replicated land parcels subject either to hunting or another putative form of biodiversity protection under similar socioeconomic systems, or tracking of populations before and after trophy hunting (accounting for other threats). Rigorous examinations would likely reveal outcomes that vary by population, geography, other threats to biodiversity, and socioeconomic and governance contexts. Finally, the addition of a long list of signatories implies a call to authority that should play little or no role in what should ultimately be an evidence-based scientific debate. By contrast, clear evidence, transparently conveyed and clearly demarcated from the ingrained values of those involved (whether they support or reject trophy hunting), could help elucidate environmental, ethical, social, and economic dimensions of this controversial activity whose ultimate conservation effects remain poorly understood. Dickman et al. respond: “…[A]ction should not be taken without evidence for its effectiveness…[but] we believe the burden of proof clearly lies with those who support [the removal of trophy hunting]…” See the [full response][5]. 1. [↵][6]1. A. Treves et al ., Conserv. Biol. 33, 472 (2018). [OpenUrl][7] 2. [↵][8]1. D. W. Macdonald et al ., Mamm. Rev. 47, 247 (2017). [OpenUrl][9] 3. [↵][10]1. P. A. Lindsey et al ., Biol. Conserv. 134, 455 (2007). [OpenUrl][11] Correction (16 March 2020): Competing interest declarations for F.J.S.-A. and P.C.P. have been added. A.T. is President of the Board of Directors of Future Wildlife, a tax-exempt organization with the mission to preserve nature, especially wild animals, and an unpaid science adviser for Project Coyote. F.J.S.-A. is on the Science Advisory Board of Project Coyote. P.C.P. is on the Science Advisory Board for Project Coyote and is associated with the IUCN species survival commission and four specialist groups. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/874 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/435.1/tab-e-letters [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.spage%253D472%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DMamm.%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D47%26rft.spage%253D247%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBiol.%2BConserv.%26rft.volume%253D134%26rft.spage%253D455%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx

In June of 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing gray wolves (Canis lupus, Linnaeus) from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections throughout the conterminous United States. The proposed rule depends on a definition of endangerment that is inconsistent with the legislative history and historical implementation of the ESA, as well as numerous court rulings. The proposed rule also asserts that areas where wolves once existed but no longer exist are “unsuitable habitat” because people in these areas lack tolerance for wolves. That claim entirely ignores a significant body of scientific knowledge that suggests otherwise. By effectively narrowing the definition of endangered species and ignoring the best available science on tolerance for wolves, the proposed rule would set an unfortunate precedent with far-reaching consequences, including dramatically limiting recovery efforts for other species protected by the ESA.

In our recent perspective article, we noted that most (approximately 60 percent) terrestrial large carnivore and large herbivore species are now threatened with extinction, and we offered a 13-point declaration designed to promote and guide actions to save these iconic mammalian megafauna (Ripple et al. 2016). Some may worry that a focus on saving megafauna might undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity more broadly. We believe that all dimensions of biodiversity are important and that efforts to conserve megafauna are not in themselves sufficient to halt the dispiriting trends of species and population losses in recent decades. From 1970 to 2012, a recent global analysis showed a 58 percent overall decline in vertebrate population abundance (WWF 2016). Bold and varied approaches are necessary to conserve what remains of Earth’s biodiversity, and our declaration in no way disputes the value of specific conservation initiatives targeting other taxa. Indeed, the evidence is clear that without massively scaling up conservation efforts for all species, we will fail to achieve internationally agreed-upon targets for biodiversity.

Publicado por primera vez en 2015., A. T. thanks the Derse Foundation, Nelson institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, USFWS, and the U.S.A. Fulbright Commission; A. T. and J. T. B. thank the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center for support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) DBI-1052875 and Mountain Social Ecological Observatory Network NSF-1231233; G. C. and J. V. L.-B. thank the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency for the Claws & Laws project (www.clawsandlaws.eu) (contract NV- 06589–113); J. V. L.-B. thanks the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness Juan de la Cierva JCI-2012-13066.

Understanding individual attitudes and how these predict overt opposition to predator conservation or direct, covert action against predators will help to recover and maintain them. Studies of attitudes toward wild animals rely primarily on samples of individuals at a single time point. We examined longitudinal change in individuals' attitudes toward gray wolves (Canis lupus). In the contiguous United States, amidst persistent controversy and opposition, abundances of gray wolves are at their highest in 60 years. We used mailed surveys to sample 1892 residents of Wisconsin in 2001 or 2004 and then resampled 656 of these individuals who resided in wolf range in 2009. Our study spanned a period of policy shifts and increasing wolf abundance. Over time, the 656 respondents increased agreement with statements reflecting fear of wolves, the belief that wolves compete with hunters for deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and inclination to poach a wolf. Endorsement of lethal control of wolves by the state and public hunting of wolves also increased. Neither the time span over which respondents reported exposure to wolves locally nor self-reported losses of domestic animals to wolves correlated with changes in attitude. We predict future increases in legal and illegal killing of wolves that may reduce their abundance in Wisconsin unless interventions are implemented to improve attitudes and behavior toward wolves. To assess whether interventions change attitudes, longitudinal studies like ours are needed. Analisis Longitudinal de las Actitudes Hacia Lobos.

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific-integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific-integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence-based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists' right to speak freely in collective-bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence-based policy and regulations in the public interest.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T17:10:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016-10-01 Oregon State Univ, Global Troph Cascades Program, Dept Forest Ecosyst & Soc, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA Univ Sydney, Desert Ecol Res Grp, Sch Biol Sci, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Deakin Univ, Ctr Integrat Ecol, Sch Life & Environm Sci, Geelong, Vic, Australia Univ Washington, Sch Environm & Forest Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Ecol, Riddarhyttan, Sweden Univ Oviedo, Res Unit Biodivers, Mieres, Spain Zool Soc London, Inst Zool, Regents Pk, London, England Univ Oxford, Wildlife Conservat Res Unit, Dept Zool, Oxford OX1 2JD, England Recanati Kaplan Ctr, Abingdon, Oxon, England Panthera, New York, NY USA Univ Pretoria, Dept Zool & Entomol, Mammal Res Inst, Gauteng, South Africa Univ KwaZulu Natal, Sch Life Sci, Durban, South Africa Wildlife Conservat Soc, New York, NY USA Univ Stirling, Sch Nat Sci, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland IUCN Eastern & Southern African Reg Off, IUCN Species Survival Commiss African Elephant Sp, Nairobi, Kenya Ohio State Univ, Sch Environm & Nat Resources, Columbus, OH 43210 USA Univ Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Sch Geog, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia Chinese Acad Sci, Ctr Integrat Conservat Xishuangbanna Trop Bot Gar, Menglun, Yunnan, Peoples R China Univ Victoria, Dept Geog, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada Raincoast Conservat Fdn, Sidney, BC, Canada Stanford Univ, Dept Biol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA Univ Calif Santa Cruz, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA Nelson Mandela Univ, Ctr African Conservat Ecol, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Bangor Univ, Sch Biol Sci, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales Bangor Univ, Sch Environm Nat Resources & Geog, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales Univ Pretoria, Ctr Wildlife Management, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Ecol, Rio Claro, Brazil Wildlife Conservat Soc, India Program, Bangalore, Karnataka, India Int Union Conservat Nat, Species Survival Commiss, Gland, Switzerland Univ New South Wales, Ctr Ecosyst Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia Oregon State Univ, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA World Wildlife Fund US, Hope, ME USA Princeton Univ, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA Univ Sussex, Sch Life Sci, Brighton, E Sussex, England Duke Univ, Nicholas Sch Environm & Earth Sci, Durham, NC 27706 USA Univ Wisconsin, Nelson Inst Environm Studies, Madison, WI 53706 USA Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Los Angeles, CA USA Michigan Technol Univ, Sch Forest Resources & Environm Sci, Houghton, MI 49931 USA Univ Technol Sydney, Ctr Compassionate Conservat, Sch Life Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Ecol & Evolutionary Biol, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA Beijing Normal Univ, Inst Ecol, Beijing 100875, Peoples R China Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Ecol, Rio Claro, Brazil

Tourism imposes costs and benefits on wild primates. Endangered black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) troops with high exposure to tourism had higher levels of botfly (Alouattamyia baeri) parasitism. Edge habitat and juvenile numbers did not seem to confound the observed relationship. To improve the cost/benefit ratio of tourism, we recommend further investigation.

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) policy is dynamic and involves multiple stakeholders. Attitudinal surveys have historically measured stakeholder attitudes, although Native American views have rarely been studied systematically. We sent a mail-back questionnaire to members of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Ojibwe) to assess attitudes toward wolves and Wisconsin wolf policy. We compared their responses to a sample of non-tribal residents of Wisconsin’s wolf range. Tribal respondents held significantly more positive attitudes toward wolves, were more supportive of protective policy, and were less supportive of a public wolf harvest than non-tribal respondents. Multivariate analyses revealed several demographic factors associated with observed differences in attitudes; the most frequent and strongest predictor was whether or not a respondent was a tribal member. Ojibwe perspectives deserve attention in future wolf policy and may influence a possible wolf harvest, especially given Ojibwe treaty rights in the Great Lakes region.

Regulated hunting may help conserve wildlife. Advocates argue hunters will champion conservation and generate revenue for management, regulation will promote sustained, stable wildlife populations, and conflicts with game species will diminish. Applying this notion to predators such as the wolf presents difficulties because of widespread human intolerance for the species. We assessed potential hunter stewardship of wolves by measuring attitudes of hunters and nonhunters in three surveys spanning 2001–2007 among 2,320 residents of four states in wolf range. Two U.S. states implemented hunting and several more are contemplating it, all as part of long-term wolf conservation. At the time of our surveys, majorities supported hypothetical wolf hunting depending on the justifications used. Likely wolf hunters showed little inclination to conserve wolves. However some predict such attitudes might change if they were allowed to hunt wolves.

Environmental hazards are distributed in nonrandom patterns; therefore, many biologists work to predict future hazard locations from the locations of past incidents. Predictive spatial models, or risk maps, promise early warning and targeted prevention of nonnative species invasion, disease spread, or wildlife damage. The prevention of hazards safeguards both humans and native biodiversity, especially in the case of conflicts with top predators. Top predators play essential ecological roles and maintain biodiversity, but they can also threaten human life and livelihood, which leads people to eradicate predator populations. In the present article, we present a risk map for gray wolf (Canis lupus) attacks on livestock in Wisconsin between 1999 and 2006 that correctly identified risk in 88% of subsequent attack sites from 2007 to 2009. More-open habitats farther from any forest and closer to wolf pack ranges were the riskiest for livestock. Prediction promotes prevention. We recommend that the next generatio...

With growing pressure for conservation to pay its way, the merits of compensation for wildlife damage must be understood in diverse socio-ecological settings. Here we compare compensation programs in Wisconsin, USA and Solapur, India, where wolves (Canis lupus) survive in landscapes dominated by agriculture and pasture. At both sites, rural citizens were especially negative toward wolves, even though other wild species caused more damage. Wisconsin and Solapur differ in payment rules and funding sources, which reflect distinct conservation and social goals. In Wisconsin, as wolves recolonized the state, some periodically preyed on livestock and hunting dogs. Ranchers and some hunters were more likely to oppose wolves than were other citizens. The Wisconsin compensation program aimed to restore an iconic species by using voluntary contributions from wolf advocates to pay affected individuals more for wolf losses than for other species. By contrast, wolves had been continuously present in Solapur, and damages were distributed amongst the general populace. Government-supported compensation payments were on offer to anyone suffering losses, yet claims registered were low. There were no significant differences in attitudes of any particular segment of the population, but those losing high value livestock applied for compensation. Residents at both sites did not report (Wisconsin) or expect (Solapur) a change in attitude towards wolves as a result of compensation, yet they support the existence of such programs. To assess the merits of any compensation program, one must disentangle the multiple goals of compensation, such as reducing wolf killing or more fairly sharing the costs of conserving large carnivores.

Labels on products are meant to influence consumer behavior. Consumers buying products labeled as eco-friendly may hope to help conserve the environment, but eco-labels vary in their claims and credibility. We define three types of wildlife-friendly eco-labels, according to their potential to conserve wildlife, and describe barriers to convincing consumers of their claims. Eco-labels we term “Supportive” donate revenues to conservation organizations and are, at best, indirect interventions, opaque to consumer scrutiny. “Persuasive” eco-labels certify manufacturing/collection practices, under the assumption that wildlife will benefit as a result. “Protective” eco-labels certify wildlife conservation, which can gain the highest level of credibility, but require the greatest verification effort. Proving that producers conserved wildlife is costly, time-consuming, and technically challenging, because wild animals ignore property boundaries and experience mortality and dispersal irrespective of people, but the...

The original Article mistakenly coded the constitutional rights of Australia as containing a governmental duty to protect the environment (blue in the figures); this has been corrected to containing no explicit mention of environmental protection (orange in the figures). The original Article also neglected to code the constitutional rights of the Cayman Islands (no data; yellow in the figures); this has been corrected to containing a governmental duty to protect the environment (blue in the figures). Although no inferences changed as a result of these errors, many values changed slightly and have been corrected. The proportion of the world’s nations having constitutional rights to a healthy environment changed from 75% to 74%. The proportions of nations in different categories given in the Fig. 1 caption all changed except purple countries (3.1%): green countries changed from 47.2% to 46.9%; blue countries changed from 24.4% to 24.2%; and orange countries changed from 25.3% to 25.8%. The proportion of the global atmospheric CO2 emitted by the 144 nations changed from 72.6% to 74.4%; the proportion of the world’s population represented by the 144 nations changed from 84.9% to 85%. The values of annual average CO2 emissions for blue countries changed from 363,000 Gg to 353,000 Gg and for orange countries from 195,000 Gg to 201,000 Gg. The proportion of threatened mammals endemic to a single country represented by the 144 countries changed from 91% to 84%. Figures 1–3 have been updated to show the correct values and map colours and the Supplementary Information has been updated to give the correct country codes.

Camera traps are increasingly used to estimate relative abundance and distribution of wildlife. These methods are powerful and efficient ways to inventory multiple species simultaneously and count rare, secretive individuals across landscapes. However the estimation methods demand assumptions about relative capture probability that may not hold well for gregarious animals. We present results from the first systematic, camera-trap study in forest–woodland, western Uganda. Within a landscape of seven protected areas with globally important biodiversity, we detected >36 species of large mammals and birds in 8841 camera-trap days. Species photographed in groups of two or more individuals produced higher estimates of relative abundance and wider distribution than species photographed as single individuals. We propose these findings reflect higher detectability for animals that forage or travel in groups. We discuss how capture–recapture theory should be adapted to account for both non-independence among individuals in groups and for the interaction between individual and temporal variation in capture probability. We also identify several species that deserve greater conservation attention in Uganda and beyond. Among them, leopards were unexpectedly rare, especially when compared to the sympatric African golden cat. We recommend against a recent policy on leopard trophy hunting, at least in western Uganda.

Regulated hunts of carnivores are believed to prevent property damage and other conflicts with people. Few studies have tested if public hunting reduces subsequent complaints about carnivores. We analyzed 10 years of data on nuisance complaints from a hunted American black bear (Ursus americanus) population in Wisconsin, USA. At the statewide scale, complaints about agricultural damage, other property damage, or human safety concerns did not correlate with each other or with number of bears taken by hunters in the preceding 1–2 years. At the smaller scale of bear management zones, there were positive correlations between the number of bears taken by hunters in one year and all categories of nuisance complaints in subsequent years. Once corrected for the estimated bear population size, only property damage retained a significant positive correlation with hunter take in prior years. Age and sex profiles of bears taken by hunters differed significantly from those of bears live-trapped around sites o...

Conservation of wildlife is especially challenging when the targeted species damage crops or livestock, attack humans, or take fish or game. Affected communities may retaliate and destroy wildlife or their habitats. We summarize recommendations from the literature for 13 distinct types of interventions to mitigate these human-wildlife conflicts. We classified eight types as direct (reducing the severity or frequency of encounters with wildlife) and five as indirect (raising human tolerance for encounters with wildlife) interventions. We analyzed general cause-and-effect relationships underlying human-wildlife conflicts to clarify the focal point of intervention for each type. To organize the recommendations on interventions we used three standard criteria for feasibility: cost-effective design, wildlife specificity and selectivity, and sociopolitical acceptability. The literature review and the feasibility criteria were integrated as decision support tools in three multistakeholder workshops. The workshops validated and refined our criteria and helped the participants select interventions. Our approach to planning interventions is systematic, uses standard criteria, and optimizes the participation of experts, policy makers, and affected communities. We argue that conservation action generally will be more effective if the relative merits of alternative interventions are evaluated in an explicit, systematic, and participatory manner.

Summary 1. Carnivores are difficult to conserve because of direct and indirect competition with people. Public hunts are increasingly proposed to support carnivore conservation. This article reviews scientific evidence for the effectiveness of public hunts of large carnivores in attaining three common policy goals: stable carnivore populations, preventing conflict with carnivores (property damage and competition over game) and building public support for carnivore conservation. 2. Sustainable exploitation of stable wildlife populations has a solid, scientific foundation but the theory and its predictions must be adapted to complex patterns of carnivore behavioural ecology and population dynamics that demand years of landscape-level monitoring to understand fully. 3. A review of the evidence that hunting prevents property damage or reduces competition for game reveals large gaps in our understanding. Reducing the number of large carnivores to protect hunters’ quarry species seems straightforward but we still know little about behavioural and ecological responses of the contested prey and sympatric meso-predators. For reducing property damage, the direct effect – numerical reduction in problematic individual carnivores – presents numerous obstacles, whereas the indirect effect – behavioural avoidance of humans by hunted carnivores – holds more promise. 4. Scientific measures of public support for carnivore-hunting policies are almost completely lacking, particularly measures of attitudes among hunters before and after controversial wildlife is designated as legal game species. Moreover, illegal killing of carnivores does not appear to diminish if they are designated as game. 5. Synthesis and applications. Sustainable hunting to maintain stable populations is well understood in theory but complex life histories of carnivores, and behavioural changes of hunters and the carnivores they stalk may result in unsustainable mortality for carnivores. The direct impact of hunting on carnivore damage to property is unclear and even doubtful given the inability or unwillingness of hunters to remove specific individuals selectively. However, hunters may indirectly deter carnivores from people and their property. The assumption that hunters will steward carnivores simply because they have in the past helped conserve other game species requires more study as preliminary results suggest it is incorrect. Policy-makers may achieve support for policy if they mesh utilitarian and preservationist values held by the general public. A number of opposed hypotheses should be disentangled before researchers confidently inform policy on sustainable hunting to prevent conflicts and build public support for carnivore conservation.

The costs of wildlife conservation distribute unequally across society. Compensation can potentially redress inequities and raise local tolerance for endangered wildlife that damage property. However, the rules for payments generate controversy, particularly as costs mount and species recover. In Wisconsin (USA), gray wolf damage payments grew notably over 28 years and eventually undermined budgets for conserving other endangered species. We measured attitudes to compensation among 1,364 state residents, including those who voluntarily contributed funds and those likely to receive compensation, and we interviewed elected officials about the politics of payment rules. Most respondents endorsed compensation for wolf damages to livestock—even when wolves are no longer endangered—but opposed payments for wolf damage to hunting dogs on public land. Most donors opposed killing wolves and over one-fourth unconditionally rejected a wolf hunt. We predict the latter donors would stop contributing funds for compensation if the state were to implement a proposed wolf hunt. Controversy over payment rules reveals clashing values regarding wildlife between those receiving and those paying for compensation. Moreover, the costs of compensation ratchet up as endangered species recover and claims of entitlement expand. Hence we recommend conservationists use sunset clauses and an adaptive management of compensation programs.

Wildlife protectionists, livestock producers, and black bear hunters influenced wolf policy in Wisconsin, USA, over the past 29 years. Wolf policy aligned closely with protectionist values until 2003, when litigations over lethal control and wolf reclassification created a rift. Since 2003, livestock producers and bear hunters have had more influence over wolf policy. Throughout, state managers steered steadily toward regaining management authority from the federal government and finding common ground between the wildlife values held by different stakeholders. Human dimensions research helped find this common ground and shape wolf policy, particularly when it integrated ecology, social science, and management applications. From spatial, predictive models of wolf attacks on domestic animals and attitudinal surveys on compensation and hunting, managers combined results into novel proposals to balance divergent interests. Wolf policy exemplifies the challenges facing wildlife managers as new wildlife values ...

Dogs were first domesticated 31 000-41 000 years ago. Humanity has experienced ecological costs and benefits from interactions with dogs and wolves. We propose that humans inherited a dual response of attraction or aversion that expresses itself independently to domestic and wild canids. The dual response has had far-reaching consequences for the ecology and evolution of all three taxa, including today's global 'ecological paw print' of 1 billion dogs and recent eradications of wolves.

SUMMARYRural depopulation has different effects on biodiversity and ecosystems in many regions of the world. For large carnivores such as pumas (Puma concolor) the effects are uncertain. An analysis of relationships between patterns of rural depopulation and perceptions of the risk posed by pumas among Aymara people in the altiplano region of Chile examined perceived risk, as well as self-reported losses, in relation to livestock husbandry, sociodemographic variables (age, household size, and residency status), and reported self-sufficiency. There was no evidence that rural depopulation elevated perceived risk, or the level of self-reported losses of livestock blamed on pumas. Indeed, many respondents, including older respondents and those with smaller households, reported a decline in perceived risk over the preceding five years. These perceptions of risk were not associated with self-reported losses to pumas in the previous year. An increase in perceived risk was associated with the use of guards for livestock, suggesting livestock owners accommodated their absences from herds by using guards. Absolute numbers of livestock lost increased with the distance from households to where livestock were grazed or gave birth. A cost-effective verification system for puma attacks is recommended, and further human dimensions research is required to identify the owners who complained and the costs and benefits of different wildlife species. Further interventions to prevent either livestock losses or retaliation against pumas can then be targeted more precisely.

In their Report “The unique ecology of human predators” (21 August, p. [858][1]), C. T. Darimont et al. explain that human predation pressure is considerably higher on large carnivores compared with other faunal groups. Evolutionarily speaking, the high predation pressure exerted by humans is a

Data from legal records, management plans, and interviews with 63 local experts reveal the substantial expansion of 15 protected areas (PAs) of forest in Ecuador and Peru during the last two decades. Combining results for these PAs, the area under protection increased by over half, from 5,760,814 to 8,972,896 ha, with the Amazonian PAs adding the greatest expanse. Most of this expanded land was legally designated for strict protection; however, in practice, human resource use and settlement are widespread. Hunting is the most common resource use, followed by logging and livestock grazing. Mining and petroleum extraction also occur in four of the 15 PAs. Together these activities on average affect approximately 30% of the area within eight Peruvian PAs and approximately 45% of the area of seven Ecuadorian PAs, far exceeding previous deforestation estimates. By expanding these PAs, Ecuadorian and Peruvian conservationists have significantly improved the coverage of key ecosystems and endangered habitats. However, they now face the daunting task of managing larger, more complex protected areas that de facto include thousands of local people. Conservation agencies in both countries are turning toward land-use zoning within PAs to integrate resource use with biodiversity conservation.

Human–nature interactions shape biodiversity and natural resources. Planning conservation and engaging stakeholders in dialogues about conservation require an understanding of indirect threats arising from socioeconomic and political conditions, plus participatory methods to build consensus for action. We present a method for spatial assessment of threats, which involves stakeholders in decision-making and planning for conservation. We developed and tested the method in wildlife conservation projects in Asia, Africa, Madagascar, and Central America. The method follows a five-step process: each participant lists the human activities that are the most damaging to biodiversity and natural resources in their region (direct threats) and the role that users, managers, and policymakers play to promote or facilitate these activities (indirect threats); all participants vote to rank the worst direct threats and to map the locations of these threats at their site. The output maps are amenable to use in GIS analysis...

Many carnivore populations escaped extinction during the twentieth century as a result of legal protections, habitat restoration, and changes in public attitudes. However, encounters between carnivores, live- stock, and humans are increasing in some areas, raising concerns about the costs of carnivore conservation. We present a method to predict sites of human-carnivore conflicts regionally, using as an example the mixed forest-agriculture landscapes of Wisconsin and Minnesota (U.S.A.). We used a matched-pair analysis of 17 land- scape variables in a geographic information system to discriminate affected areas from unaffected areas at two spatial scales (townships and farms). Wolves (Canis lupus) selectively preyed on livestock in townships with high proportions of pasture and high densities of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) combined with low proportions of crop lands, coniferous forest, herbaceous wetlands, and open water. These variables plus road density and farm size also appeared to predict risk for individual farms when we considered Minnesota alone. In Wisconsin only, farm size, crop lands, and road density were associated with the risk of wolf attack on livestock. At the level of townships, we generated two state-wide maps to predict the extent and location of future predation on livestock. Our approach can be applied wherever spatial data are available on sites of conflict between wildlife and humans.

As wolf ( Canis lupus) populations recover in Wisconsin (U.S.A.), their depredations on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs have increased. We used a mail-back survey to assess the tolerance of 535 rural cit- izens of wolves and their preferences regarding the management of "problem" wolves. Specifically, we tested whether people who had lost domestic animals to wolves or other predators were less tolerant of wolves than neighboring residents who had not and whether compensation payments improved tolerance of wolves. We assessed tolerance via proxy measures related to an individual's preferred wolf population size for Wisconsin and the likelihood she or he would shoot a wolf. We also measured individuals' approval of lethal control and other wolf-management tactics under five conflict scenarios. Multivariate analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of tolerance was social group. Bear ( Ursus americanus) hunters were concerned about losing valu- able hounds to wolves and were more likely to approve of lethal control and reducing the wolf population than were livestock producers, who were more concerned than general residents. To a lesser degree, education level, experience of loss, and gender were also significant. Livestock producers and bear hunters who had been compensated for their losses to wolves were not more tolerant than their counterparts who alleged a loss but received no compensation. Yet all respondents approved of compensation payments as a management strategy. Our results indicate that deep-rooted social identity and occupation are more powerful predictors of tolerance of wolves than individual encounters with these large carnivores.

Conservation biology requires the development of practical tools and techniques to minimize con- flicts arising from human modification of ecosystems. We applied behavioral theory of primary and secondary repellents to predator management by using aversive stimulus devices (electronic training collars) and dis- ruptive stimulus devices (behavior-contingent audio and visual repellents) in a multipredator ( Canis lupus, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Ursus spp.) study in the United States. We examined fladry and a newly developed dis- ruptive stimulus device contingent upon behavior on six wolf territories in Wisconsin, (U.S.A.) and determined that the disruptive stimulus device gave the greatest degree of protection from predation. We also compared the efficacy of a primary repellent (disruptive stimulus device) versus a secondary repellent (electronic training collars) to keep captive wolves from consuming a food source. Disruptive stimulus devices effectively prevented captive wolves from consuming the food resource, but did not produce an aversion to that food resource. With training collars, logistical and behavioral variability limited our ability to condition wolves. Our studies highlight the complexity of application of nonlethal techniques in real-world situations. Tecnicas no Letales para Gestion de la Depredacion: Repelentes Primarios y Secundarios

Carnivore conservation depends on the sociopolitical landscape as much as the biological landscape. Changing political attitudes and views of nature have shifted the goals of carnivore management from those based on fear and narrow economic interests to those based on a better understanding of ecosystem function and adaptive management. In parallel, aesthetic and scientific arguments against lethal control techniques are encouraging the development of nonlethal approaches to carnivore management. We anticipate greater success in modifying the manner and frequency with which the activities of humans and domestic animals intersect with those of carnivores. Success should permit carnivore populations to persist for decades despite human population growth and modification of habitat.

Ranging patterns are important features of animal ecology both for evolutionary ecologists who study adaptive foraging and habitat use, and for conservationists who need information on habitat requirements and minimum resource needs. Because ranging patterns are difficult and time-consuming to measure, many researchers have sought socio-ecological variables that predict range use. For example, many studies show a correlation between daily path length (day-range length) and the number of animals in a group (Chapman et al. 1995, van Schaik et al. 1983, Waser 1977, Wrangham et al. 1993). This seems reasonable because larger groups have more mouths to feed, necessitating more travel to find adequate food supplies. Group size is far easier to measure than day range, hence the attraction of this variable. However, group size must be used cautiously as a proxy for day range because their relationship is neither strong nor straightforward. When investigating the relationship between day-range length and group size in primates, an interesting contrast emerges between frugivores and folivores. Predominantly fruit-eating primates in large groups travel further in a day than those in small groups (Waser 1977). In contrast, some studies of predominantly leaf-eating primates have found no relationship between day-range length and group size (Isbell 1991, Struhsaker & Leland 1987). Comparative studies by Clutton-Brock & Harvey (1977) and Janson & Goldsmith (1995) concluded that group size is related to day-range length in frugivores but not folivores. The lack of a relationship between day-range length and group size suggests that either feeding competition is not related to group size for folivorous primates or that folivores compensate for lower food acquisition rates in other ways than increasing travel effort. The black howler (Alouatta pigra, Lawrence) can be considered a folivore-frugivore with a flexible diet (Silver et al. 1998). As part of a translocation project, Ostro et al. (1999) studied the black howler at two sites in central Belize. The authors found that, at the source site, dayrange length increased with group size for the six groups studied. Each group was followed for 3 d per month over a 3-mo period (February-May). However, no relationship was found at the destination study site where four groups of translocated animals were followed for 4 d per month for 1 y after release. The authors concluded that at the source site, food was limited and highly clumped and therefore larger groups had to travel further to find adequate resources. Similarly, they concluded that food was not as limited and more evenly distributed at the destination site with translocated monkeys and therefore dayrange length did not correlate with group size. We investigated the relationship between group size and day-range length in the black howler population at Lamanai, Belize. We also tested for alternative predictors of day-range length such as group spread, time spent feeding, and habitat quality. We hope to shed light on the determinants of day-range length for a primate that eats both leaves and fruit. We conducted our work on Lamanai Reserve. It is a

Finding a balance between strict protection and multiple use requires data on wildlife survival in human-managed ecosystems. We examined the habitat use and species composition of mammals � 2 kg in size inhabiting an agroforest ecosystem neighboring a park in the Peruvian Amazon. First, we recorded wild- life presence in fields, fallows, and forests within one settlement over a 9-month period. Then we monitored wildlife presence over 21 months in 42 fields across a 65-km transect, including remote and highly disturbed sites. We tested for correlations between the size and number of mammal species visiting fields and human activities measured at different scales. Hunting intensity more powerfully predicted the average biomass and species diversity observed in fields than did vegetation disturbance. The number of commercial hunters in the surrounding community had a stronger impact than did the individual field owner's hunting intensity. Large-bodied species appeared only in remote farms neighboring uninhabited areas in the reserve, indicating that undisturbed forests act as sources for wildlife dispersing into agricultural regions. Farmers in these re- mote areas experience greater crop and livestock losses to wildlife, but by hunting large game they are able to offset losses with bushmeat gains. In more disturbed areas, crop losses exceeded bushmeat gains, although both occurred at negligible levels. Our case study suggests that large herbivores, large carnivores, and most primates are unlikely to persist in multiple-use zones in Amazonian forests unless hunting is effectively re- stricted. Even highly disturbed agroforests are not empty of wildlife, however, but are inhabited by a suite of adaptable, fast-reproducing species able to withstand human activity (e.g., brown agoutis ( Dasyprocta variegata ), armadillos ( Dasypus novemcinetus ), and red brocket deer ( Mazama gauazoubira )). These "weedy" spe- cies may not be of immediate concern to conservation biologists, and they will not attract tourists. But they have both economic and ecological value and deserve to be taken into account in management decisions.

Conservationists are missing opportunities to protect species at mass tourism sites where wildlife itself is not the main tourist attraction. At such locations are ‘incidental ecotourists’, i.e. tourists with multiple interests who encounter wildlife or fragile ecosystems inadvertently. A case study from Lamanai Archaeological Reserve, Belize, reveals the motivations of incidental ecotourists and their impact on an endangered primate species, the black howler monkey, Alouatta pigra. Four hundred and seventy-one visitors were surveyed to assess their travel goals, conservation commitments, and reactions to viewing howler monkeys. Data were also collected on the behaviour of tourists and monkeys during encounters. More intense tourist interactions with howler monkeys were correlated with the number of tourists and the duration of the encounter; guided parties interacted more intensely than unguided parties. Tourists were largely unaware that these interactions may harm the howler monkeys. Qualitative observations of howler response to tourists suggest short- and long-term negative impacts. These impacts could be mitigated through more effective guide training, limiting tourist group size, and increasing entrance fees at the Reserve. Improving environmental education may reduce impacts and motivate some tourists to become advocates for conservation of endangered species.

In many vertebrates, parents protect their young by detecting predators and aggressive conspecifics before they attack. But parental investment in protection is a limited resource, whose allocation to offspring should reflect optimization strategies. Thus, we tested if maternal investment in vigilance varied with the risk faced by young black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Twelve females in six groups were compared, including those with and without young and those with immatures of differing ages. The greatest increase in vigilance was seen when immatures were conspicuous, and to a lesser extent, among mothers of dependent young (neonates and infants). These findings support the idea that parents adjust their behavior to both chronic and episodic risk faced by young. We explore the possible role of predation and infanticide in shaping the vigilance of mothers.

The management of large carnivores remains a contentious issue in many countries. Among the most contentious management options is ‘tolerance hunting’, or the killing of predators to increase tolerance among groups of people who do not accept the presence of these animals [1,2]. In [3,4], we used Bayesian state space models to evaluate the hypothesis that liberalizing culling of wolves changed wolf population dynamics from 1995 to 2012, and concluded it slowed growth, which we inferred was owing to increased poaching. Olson et al . [5] and Stien [6] re-visit our paper and we address their criticisms below. First, we disagree with Olson et al .'s [5] and Stien's [6] assertions that our paper ignores the literature or reports it in a biased manner. We simply disagree about the interpretation of the literature as we explain below. While they can have a different interpretation of those papers, it does not mean that ours is incorrect and Stien's [6, p. 1] phrasing ‘biased reporting of previously published results’ almost suggests intent from us to mislead the reader. Both Olson et al . [5] and Stien [6] raised the issue of density dependence analysed by Stenglein et al . [7]. In that paper, the information on density dependence relevant to our paper is in figures 3, S2.4, S2.5 and S2.6 (we cannot find reported numerical estimates on how recruitment changed during the relevant period for our study in [7]). Stenglein et al . [7, p. 5] wrote that ‘The evidence for a negative slope of the line for t > 18 was 69.0% (proportion of …

Animals are expected to reduce per capita vigilance with increasing group size. Widespread support for this expectation has been found in studies of birds and ungulates. Primate vigilance patterns appear to differ, but studies of primates may have sampled groups with too many members to detect intergroup differences in vigilance. We tested this idea by measuring individual vigilance rates in wild black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra) living in stable groups of two to ten individuals. No group size effect on vigilance emerged. As in previous studies, inter-individual proximity explained variation in individual vigilance rates. Focal animals with associates within 2 m and with multiple associates in the same tree were less vigilant than isolated animals. Activity and class of focal animals as well as the presence of neonates influenced the average vigilance of adult and subadult black howler monkeys. We conclude that functional explanations must be considered for the general lack of a group size effect on primate vigilance.

At least three general categories of environmental pressure – predation, resource distribution, and demographics – shape the costs and benefits of group-living for animals. Among the demographic factors that influence individual survival and reproduction, the composition of social groups can play an important role. Census data drawn from 26 populations of howler monkeys (Alouatta spp.) were used to determine if the composition of groups explained variation in their reproductive performance. Each group's reproductive performance was estimated by calculating the difference between the observed number of immatures and the number expected from its population average. Of four group structure variables tested, only one – the residual of the adult and subadult sex ratio – was a consistent correlate of reproductive performance across the howler monkey populations. Groups with a greater proportion of adult and subadult males contained more juveniles than expected from the population average. I propose that the survival or retention of immatures within howler monkey groups depends in part on the behavior of resident males. Of particular importance, the relative proportions of resident males and females were more informative than the absolute number of males or females. On this basis, I evaluate the possible role of males in protection from predation, conspecific aggression, and resource competition. The techniques used here can also be used to forecast major changes in demographic structure within populations.