Search

Large carnivores have long fascinated human societies and have profound influences on ecosystems. However, their conservation represents one of the greatest challenges of our time, particularly where attacks on humans occur. Where human recreational and/or livelihood activities overlap with large carnivore ranges, conflicts can become particularly serious. Two different scenarios are responsible for such overlap: In some regions of the world, increasing human populations lead to extended encroachment into large carnivore ranges, which are subject to increasing contraction, fragmentation, and degradation. In other regions, human and large carnivore populations are expanding, thus exacerbating conflicts, especially in those areas where these species were extirpated and are now returning. We thus face the problem of learning how to live with species that can pose serious threats to humans. We collected a total of 5,440 large carnivore (Felidae, Canidae, and Ursidae; 12 species) attacks worldwide between 1950 and 2019. The number of reported attacks increased over time, especially in lower-income countries. Most attacks (68%) resulted in human injuries, whereas 32% were fatal. Although attack scenarios varied greatly within and among species, as well as in different areas of the world, factors triggering large carnivore attacks on humans largely depend on the socioeconomic context, with people being at risk mainly during recreational activities in high-income countries and during livelihood activities in low-income countries. The specific combination of local socioeconomic and ecological factors is thus a risky mix triggering large carnivore attacks on humans, whose circumstances and frequencies cannot only be ascribed to the animal species. This also implies that effective measures to reduce large carnivore attacks must also consider the diverse local ecological and social contexts.

As the top predator in African ecosystems, lions have lost more than 90% of their historical range, and few countries possess strong evidence for stable populations. Translocations (broadly defined here as the capture and movement of lions for various management purposes) have become an increasingly popular action for this species, but the wide array of lion translocation rationales and subsequent conservation challenges stemming from poorly conceived or unsuitable translocations warrants additional standardized evaluation and guidance. At their best, translocations fill a key role in comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing the threats facing lions and fostering the recovery of wild populations in their historic range. At their worst, translocations can distract from addressing the major threats to wild populations and habitats, divert scarce funding from more valuable conservation actions, exacerbate conflict with humans in recipient sites, disrupt local lion demography, and undermine the genetic integrity of wild lion populations in both source and recipient sites. In the interest of developing best practice guidelines for deciding when and how to conduct lion translocations, we discuss factors to consider when determining whether a translocation is of conservation value, introduce a value assessment for translocations, and provide a decision matrix to assist practitioners in improving the positive and reducing the negative outcomes of lion translocation., As the top predator in African ecosystems, lions have lost more than 90% of their historical range, and few countries possess strong evidence for stable populations. Translocations (broadly defined here as the capture and movement of lions for various management purposes) have become an increasingly popular action for this species, but the wide array of lion translocation rationales and subsequent conservation challenges stemming from poorly conceived or unsuitable translocations warrants additional standardized evaluation and guidance. At their best, translocations fill a key role in comprehensive strategies aimed at addressing the threats facing lions and fostering the recovery of wild populations in their historic range. At their worst, translocations can distract from addressing the major threats to wild populations and habitats, divert scarce funding from more valuable conservation actions, exacerbate conflict with humans in recipient sites, disrupt local lion demography, and undermine the genetic integrity of wild lion populations in both source and recipient sites. In the interest of developing best practice guidelines for deciding when and how to conduct lion translocations, we discuss factors to consider when determining whether a translocation is of conservation value, introduce a value assessment for translocations, and provide a decision matrix to assist practitioners in improving the positive and reducing the negative outcomes of lion translocation.

Conservation translocations have become an important management tool, particularly for large wildlife species such as the lion (Panthera leo). When planning translocations, the genetic background of populations needs to be taken into account; failure to do so risks disrupting existing patterns of genetic variation, ultimately leading to genetic homogenization, and thereby reducing resilience and adaptability of the species. We urge wildlife managers to include knowledge of the genetic background of source/target populations, as well as species-wide patterns, in any management intervention. We present a hierarchical decision-making tool in which we list 132 lion populations/lion conservation units and provide information on genetic assignment, uncertainty and suitability for translocation for each source/target combination. By including four levels of suitability, from ‘first choice’ to ‘no option’, we provide managers with a range of options. To illustrate the extent of international trade of lions, and the potential disruption of natural patterns of intraspecific diversity, we mined the CITES Trade Database for estimated trade quantities of live individuals imported into lion range states during the past 4 decades. We identified 1056 recorded individuals with a potential risk of interbreeding with wild lions, 772 being captive-sourced. Scoring each of the records with our decision-making tool illustrates that only 7% of the translocated individuals were ‘first choice’ and 73% were ‘no option’. We acknowledge that other, nongenetic factors are important in the decision-making process, and hence a pragmatic approach is needed. A framework in which source/target populations are scored based on suitability is not only relevant to lion, but also to other species of wildlife that are frequently translocated. We hope that the presented overview supports managers to include genetics in future management decisions and contributes towards conservation of the lion in its f