ArticlePDF Available

Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses

Wiley
Conservation Letters
Authors:
  • Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology
  • Biodiversity Research Institute (CSIC - Oviedo University - Principality of Asturias)

Abstract

Variation in the legal status and management of wolves ( Canis lupus ) across EU Member States provides a good opportunity to test the effectiveness of different practices to reduce livestock losses. This opportunity for testing is particularly useful for lethal interventions, as they are among the most controversial actions within the large carnivore management toolbox. We aimed to test a conservation compromise adopted in Slovakia, based on a public wolf‐hunting scheme and annual hunting quotas between 2014 and 2019, and partially justified to reduce livestock losses. We assessed whether this hunting scheme influenced livestock depredation levels (at the district level). Wolves in the area fed mainly on wild ungulates (98.9% of consumed biomass). While domestic sheep comprised only 0.5% of the diet, they were dominant among the reported livestock killed by wolves (91.1%). Using two different approaches, we did not observe a relationship between the number of killed wolves and livestock losses. Alternatively, a negative relationship between wild prey biomass and livestock losses was found. Since 2021, public wolf hunting has not been conducted in Slovakia, and there is no merit in the previous justification for this conservation compromise to reduce livestock losses.
Received:  October  Accepted:  October 
DOI: ./conl.
LETTER
Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public
wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses
Miroslav Kutal1,2Martin Duľa1,2Alisa Royer Selivanova1
José Vicente López-Bao3
Faculty of Forestry and Wood
Technology, Department of Forest
Ecology, Mendel University in Brno,
Brno, Czech Republic
Carnivore Conservation Programme,
Friends of the Earth Czech Republic,
Olomouc, Czech Republic
Biodiversity Research Institute, CSIC,
Oviedo University, Principality of
Asturias, Oviedo University, Mieres,
Spain
Correspondence
Miroslav Kutal, Faculty of Forestry and
Wood Technology, Department of Forest
Ecology, Mendel University in Brno,
Zemědělská ,   Brno, Czech
Republic. Email:
miroslav.kutal@hnutiduha.cz
Funding information
Regional Government of Asturias
(GRUPIN research grant), Grant/Award
Number: AYUD//; Spanish
Ministry of Economy, Industry and
Competitiveness, Grant/Award Number:
CGL--R AEI/FEDER EU
Abstract
Variation in the legal status and management of wolves (Canis lupus) across EU
Member States provides a good opportunity to test the effectiveness of different
practices to reduce livestock losses. This opportunity for testing is particularly
useful for lethal interventions, as they are among the most controversial actions
within the large carnivore management toolbox. We aimed to test a conservation
compromise adopted in Slovakia, based on a public wolf-hunting scheme and
annual hunting quotas between  and , and partially justified to reduce
livestock losses. We assessed whether this hunting scheme influenced livestock
depredation levels (at the district level). Wolves in the area fed mainly on wild
ungulates (.% of consumed biomass). While domestic sheep comprised only
.% of the diet, they were dominant among the reported livestock killed by
wolves (.%). Using two different approaches, we did not observe a relation-
ship between the number of killed wolves and livestock losses. Alternatively, a
negative relationship between wild prey biomass and livestock losses was found.
Since , public wolf hunting has not been conducted in Slovakia, and there is
no merit in the previous justification for this conservation compromise to reduce
livestock losses.
KEYWORDS
Canis lupus, evidence-informed conservation, large carnivores, livestock depredation, wolf
hunting, wolf management
1 INTRODUCTION
Large carnivore conservation is challenging in human-
dominated landscapes, where the compatibility of their
presence with livestock farming (particularly extensive
practices) represents one of the oldest conflict drivers in
the conservation of these species (Lute et al., ). From
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
©  The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
the perspective of either wildlife management or live-
stock welfare (López-Bao & Mateo-Tomás, ), a range
of different nonlethal and lethal interventions have been
proposed, and used, to minimize the risk of livestock
depredations (e.g., Eklund et al., ; Lorand et al., ;
van Eeden et al., ). Balancing between large carnivore
conservation and farming or hunting interests is politically
Conservation Letters. ;e. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl 1of8
https://doi.org/./conl.
2of8 KUTAL  .
desirable, which often results in controversial conservation
compromises.
Lethal interventions are among the most controversial
issues when dealing with large carnivores (Lute et al.,
) and currently receive less public support (Lute &
Attari, ) and increased attention due to several ethi-
cal concerns (Vucetich & Nelson, ). Furthermore, four
independent reviews published between  and 
(van Eeden et al., ) agreed on the need to improve stan-
dards of evidence used in evaluating interventions against
carnivore attacks and highlighted how these standards
have thus far been much lower for lethal compared to non-
lethal interventions (see also Lorand et al., ;Treves
et al., ), although there are also relatively few robust
studies evaluating the latter (see Eklund et al., ).
Variation in the wolf’s legal status and management
measures implemented among EU Member States, states
of the United States or Canadian provinces provides useful
opportunities to test the impact of different wolf man-
agement approaches (e.g., Treves et al., ) on conflict
mitigation and wolf conservation. Wolf public hunting
schemes are frequently justified as a tool to reduce live-
stock depredations and facilitate safe coexistence with
humans (e.g., Vucetich et al., ). Apart from the diverse
legal, ethical, and ecological considerations, lethal inter-
ventions in this case should only be considered an effective
tool if there is an observable reduction in livestock losses
after their implementation that does not come at the cost
of threatening the viability of wolf populations.
Interestingly, the relationship between wolf public hunt-
ing schemes and the dynamics of livestock losses has
received less research attention than expected consider-
ing the remarkable public interest around this topic (e.g.,
Delibes-Mateos, ). Standards for available studies vary
considerably, but excluding studies with flawed design still
shows weak or uncertain effects of lethal control (Treves
et al., ). Previous studies that have explored the rela-
tionship between lethal control (mainly carried out by
agency authorities; i.e., culling) and livestock depredation
have offered contrasting results (e.g., Bradley et al., ;
DeCesare et al., ; Santiago-Avila et al., ), even
when using the same dataset (Kompaniyets & Evans, ;
Poudyal et al., ; Wielgus & Peebles, )andbeing
complex to synthesize a general and unique effect (Grente,
).
In Europe, the Bern Convention of  and the Habi-
tats Directive of  are the fundamental legal frameworks
for wolf conservation. Wolves are listed in Annex IV of
the Directive (species of community interest in need of
strict protection) in most EU Member States, with some
populations (entire or partial) being listed in Annex V
(species of community interest whose taking in the wild
and exploitation may be subject to management measures,
including regulated hunting). Under either of these
annexes, Member States are required to ensure that wolf
populations reach or maintain a favorable conservation
status (Epstein et al., ). Several Member States with a
historical tradition of public wolf hunting have banned this
practice even with the species listed in Annex V. Poland
passed the full protection of wolves into national law in
 (Nowak & Mysłajek, ). Public hunting of wolves
has been banned in Romania since  (Popescu et al.,
), in Slovenia since  (Ferraro & Bombieri, ),
and Spain since  (Instruction No. TED// of the
Ministry for the Ecological Transition). In Slovakia, the
wolf protection status has changed substantially after ,
following an infringement procedure at the EU level. The
number of killed wolves dropped by % (Kutal et al., 
and this study), and the species was protected year-round
in a strictly defined area along the borders with the Czech
Republic, Poland and Hungary. This partial protection was
a conservation compromise among the interests of diverse
stakeholders. The Ministry of the Environment of the Slo-
vak Republic listed the wolf as a fully protected species
under the implementation of the Decree no. /.
Although public wolf hunting continues in other Annex
V,orevenAnnex IV, countries (e.g., Sweden; Epstein
et al., ), there is limited knowledge on how public
wolf-hunting schemes influence livestock depredations in
Europe (Krofel et al., ) (see DeCesare et al.,  for
North America). Such evidence is of paramount impor-
tance as the recent recovery of wolves across EU Member
States, excluding islands (Boitani et al., ; Chapron
et al., ) has intensified the debate on the liberalization
of strict wolf protection due to the social conflicts arising
from livestock depredation (e.g., Kiffner et al., ). Com-
pared to North America, domestic ungulates are a more
common food source for wolves in Europe (Newsome et al.,
;Singeretal.,).
Here, we aimed to test the influence of this conservation
compromise, the limited public wolf-hunting scheme used
in the Slovak Republic between  and  (i.e., a regu-
lated hunting of nonspecific individuals by private citizens,
based on annual hunting quotas), on livestock depreda-
tion levels at the Slovakian district level. Wolves have long
been hunted in the area without a robust evaluation of
the impact of this practice on wolf population dynamics
or livestock losses (Kutal & Dula, ). Each year, public
wolf hunting was allowed from November until January
, the next year. Quotas were set prior to November each
year on a national or regional level by a special working
group, based on suggestions from district hunting admin-
istrations and from several sources of information such as
official livestock depredation data and results of wolf mon-
itoring (Antal et al., ). However, no methodology has
been developed on the use of livestock depredation data for
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KUTAL  . 3of8
FIGURE 1 Study area for analysis of wolf livestock depredation in Slovakia ( districts with reported wolf presence, –, red
line) and model area for detailed analysis of species feeding ecology ( districts, green line). Area-specific data showing the number of sheep
killed by wolves (shades of red) and the number of wolves killed the previous winter in Slovakia (circles).
quota setting, and quotes were set only at the regional level
rather than the district level.
2METHODS
2.1 Data collection
We used information at the level of Slovakian districts on
livestock damages, number of wolves hunted, and wolf
diet. We selected  districts (, km; % of total Slo-
vak area) where wolf presence was reported by hunters
during the study period to study the effect of public wolf
hunting on patterns of livestock damage, and districts
( km; .% of area with reported presence of wolves)
in north-western Slovakia to study wolf diet (Figure ).
This region has permanent wolf occurrence and breeding
(Kutal et al., ) and unlike other areas in Slovakia it has
not yet been studied regarding wolf feeding habits (e.g.,
Guimarães et al., ). The district level was the smallest
administrative unit available across all data sources (aver-
age of  ± km; km)andwasonaverage
larger than the size of wolf territories in Slovakia or neigh-
boring Poland (Finďo & Chovancová, ; Jędrzejewski
et al., ).
Overall, sheep is the most common livestock species
in all selected districts (, heads; .% of total
farmed animals), followed by cattle (,; .%) and
goats (,; %; Central Evidence of Livestock, https://
www.cehz.sk/index.jsp). According to the National Forest
Centre database “Polovstat” (https://gis.nlcsk.org/ibulh/
PolovStat/PolovStat), the assemblage of wild ungulates
here consists of wild boar (Sus scrofa, .% of hunted
ungulates), red deer (Cervus elaphus, .%), roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus, .%), fallow deer (Dama dama,
.%), and mouflon (Ovis aries, .%). Slovakian authorities
reported – wolves for the entire country in  to
the European Commission, according to Article  report-
ing of the Habitats Directive (Černecký et al., ;Eionet
Portal, ). In , around  wolves were estimated
in the country, including transboundary animals (Boitani
et al., ).
For the period –, we obtained yearly data on
livestock heads killed by wolves ( heads in total),
estimated the total number of wolves, counted the num-
ber of wolves killed by district in the previous season
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4of8 KUTAL  .
( wolves were hunted during the study period; annual
average  ±.), estimated the number of wild ungu-
lates, and obtained the number of farmed livestock (State
Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, National
Forest Centre, and Central Evidence of Livestock, respec-
tively). Sheep was the most common livestock type killed
by wolves (.% of livestock heads). Goats and cattle were
reported rather rarely (reaching .% and .% of live-
stock killed by wolves, respectively). These figures account
for .% of sheep, .% of goats, and .% of cattle
of the livestock census. Data on livestock damages older
than  were not available at the district level. We
estimated the available biomass of wild ungulates based
on a reverse calculation method, following Kutal et al.
(). We also analyzed  wolf scats collected between
 and  in north-western Slovakia. Details on
scat collection, determination and analysis are described
in Appendix S..
2.2 The relationship between public
hunting and livestock depredations
We adopted two different approaches to explore the effect
of public wolf hunting on livestock depredation levels.
First, we built generalized mixed models using a negative
binomial distribution for the response variable: number of
livestock killed by wolves at the district level. We tested
whether the number of livestock killed in a given year and
district was influenced by the number of wolves shot in
the previous hunting season (i.e., from November of the
previous year until January  of that year). We used two
proxies for measuring the impact of public wolf hunting:
(i) absolute number of wolves hunted and (ii) the propor-
tion of wolves hunted from the total estimated number of
wolves at the district level. We considered two additional
competing models in our analyses: (iii) considering the
number of farmed livestock and (iv) considering the esti-
mated biomass of wild ungulates. See Appendix S. for
details of the statistical analysis performed. Second, we ret-
rospectively selected a subset of pairs of consecutive years
(i.e., cases) to run a × before-after control-impact design
(BACI design; Appendix S.). We compared the number
of livestock depredations one year before and after win-
tertime, the period of wolf-hunting season (November to
January ), in a number of treatment and control cases
with and without killed wolves (treatment = cases, con-
trol = cases). See Appendix S. for the criteria used to
select cases for the BACI design, and the statistical analysis
performed.
3RESULTS
3.1 The influence of public wolf
hunting on livestock losses
There were no changes over time in the number of live-
stock losses (rS=−., p=.), number of wolves
killed in the previous season (rS=−., p=.), or
number of districts with reported wolves during the study
period (i.e., wolf range; rS=., p=.). However,
the estimated biomass density of wild ungulates increased
significantly over time (rS=., p=.). Livestock
losses in a given year did not correlate with the num-
ber of wolves hunted in the immediate previous hunting
season (Appendix S), either in absolute (posterior param-
eter estimate: . ±., % BCI: ./.) or relative
terms (posterior parameter estimate: . ±., %
BCI: ./.). Our × BACI design approach com-
plemented this finding as we did not detect differences in
the number of livestock losses at the district level between
treatment and control groups (Appendix S.).
3.2 Other factors affecting livestock
losses
Wild ungulates dominated the wolf diet (.% of con-
sumed biomass), and cervids were consumed far more
than wild boars (% deer vs. .% wild boar). According
to hunting bags in north-western Slovakia, the commu-
nities of wild ungulates were dominated by wild boar,
followed by red deer and roe deer. We observed a high
selection for roe deer (D=.), a high avoidance of wild
boar (D=−.), and predation on red deer according
to its availability (D=−.; Figure ). Sheep was esti-
mated to account for . % of consumed biomass, and
no other domestic animal was detected in this dataset
(Table ). In this context, the model including the esti-
mated biomass density of wild ungulates was the most
parsimonious model explaining livestock losses in this
area, with a negative influence on the magnitude of losses
(Appendix S).
4DISCUSSION
Based on the two different approaches used in this
study, public wolf-hunting schemes did not correlate with
livestock depredation levels at the Slovak district level.
Although livestock damages in the previous two years
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KUTAL  . 5of8
TABLE 1 Diet composition of wolves in the study area of north-western Slovakia (–). Subtotals and totals are marked in bold.
Prey item
Frequency of occurrence
(%)
Biomass consumed
(%) Biomass consumed (g)
Undetermined cervids . . ,
Roe deer Capreolus capreolus . . ,
Red deer Cervus elaphus . . ,
Wild boar Sus scrofa . . ,
Wild ungulates total 97.69 98.86 359,792
Brown hare Lepus europaeus . . 
Medium mammals total 0.38 0.52 1898
Bank vole Myodes glareolus . . 
Undetermined weasel Mustela spp. . .
Undetermined Soricidae . .
Undetermined small mammal . . 
Small mammals total 1.53 0.07 237
Sheep . . 
Livestock total . 0.55 2015
Plant material 7.3 ──
Number of scats 260
were used to set the baseline for establishing hunting
quotas, according to the Slovak wolf management plan
(Antal et al., ), the quota system was set on national
and regional scales yearly and could not target specific
hotspots with increased damages. The absence of uniform
procedures for using livestock depredation data through-
out Slovakia to prioritize conflict areas was likely one of
the significant shortcomings of quota setting. The observed
failure in reducing livestock losses is expected if predators
are nonselectively removed (Lennox et al., ). Bradley
et al. () found that even partial removal of a wolf pack
was not effective in reducing livestock depredations if con-
ducted more than  days after the depredation event, and
only a marginally significant difference between partial
pack removal and no action was observed if conducted
after days from the depredation (but see Santiago-Avila
et al., ). The assessed public hunting scheme did not
fulfill the criteria for this short-term targeted removal. Two
other studies performed in Montana, USA and Slovenia
found no evidence that removing wolves through public
harvest affected the year-to-year presence or absence of
livestock losses by wolves (DeCesare et al., ;Krofel
et al., ). A small effect (. fewer depredation events
year) was found only within the subset of districts with
conflicts, where public harvest of a greater proportion of
the known wolves in a district reduced the number of
depredations (DeCesare et al., ). Additionally, previ-
ous research has demonstrated that removing wolves from
a particular site did not reduce future risk of recurrence
in wolf depredations in neighboring areas (Santiago-Avila
et al., ). The before-after control-impact design used
in this study does not provide the strongest inference
about the effects of predator control and the use of higher
standards is recommended to address this question more
thoroughly (Treves et al., ). For example, some finer
effects of wolf culling could also be hidden by the relatively
coarse scale of our study at the district level (Santiago-Avila
et al., ).
The overall results of diet analysis closely resemble
observations of the dietary preference of wolves in Central
Europe, where wild ungulates were by far the dominant
prey item and livestock was marginally represented (e.g.,
Guimarães et al., ; Nowak et al., ). The lack of exact
data on the abundance of prey communities, which were
not studied by robust methods in most of referred studies
on wolf diet, could cause a possible bias in prey selection.
The lack of a relationship between wolves hunted and
livestock killed by wolves could also be caused by negli-
gible representation of livestock in the diet of Slovakian
wolves found in north-western Slovakia within the same
period (this study) or in central and eastern Slovakia in
– (Guimarães et al., ). In addition to the cor-
rect implementation of effective livestock damage preven-
tion measures (to reduce the vulnerability of livestock to
wolf attacks), the availability of wild ungulates is an impor-
tant factor shaping wolf diet patterns in human-dominated
landscapes (e.g., Mayer et al., ). Our analysis indicated
that abundant wild prey may actually avert wolf predation
on livestock, but these conclusions should be interpreted
with caution—a large area with permanent wolf presence
has lower biomass density due to higher altitudes and
overall lower productivity of mountain habitats and the
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6of8 KUTAL  .
FIGURE 2 Composition of wild ungulate communities based
on hunting bag, wolf prey, and preference/avoidance of wolves
based on Ivlev’s electivity index in study area of north-western
Slovakia (–).
densities of ungulate populations cannot be augmented
due to generally high damages from deer browsing in the
forest (Finďo et al., ). Data on other important factors
which drive livestock vulnerability, such as presence and
effectiveness of damage prevention measures, are miss-
ing for each reported case in official statistics. We also
acknowledge that reported damages on livestock may not
be complete, since some minor losses may not be discov-
ered or reported due to bureaucratic reasons. However,
considering the average annual number of damages was
 livestock heads and depredations were one of basis for
setting hunting quotas, we expect that the proportion of
missing head was low. We used the only available official
data and believe they are not significantly underestimated
due to the opportunity for financial compensation.
Low levels of livestock predation by wolves in our study
and in other studies from Central Europe indicate that
wolves in this area do not rely on livestock for their per-
sistence. Therefore, the argument for public hunting of
wolves to prevent severe sheep losses and protect food
security in Slovakia (Kutal & Dula, ) lacks evidence.
Wolves received year-round protection in Slovakia in ,
making it the last country in Central Europe to include
year-round protection of the species under national law.
There are strong political incentives to scapegoat large car-
nivores (Chapron & López-Bao, ), and new attempts
for lethal management of wolves in Europe may arise
in the near future using similar arguments. Whether
the conflict in Slovakia around wolves was mitigated
though this public hunting scheme, despite no observ-
able effects on livestock depredations, cannot be answered
if no human-dimensions research took place before and
after the implementation of this conservation compro-
mise. However, available studies from other regions did
not provide much evidence that attitudes towards wolves
become more positive after legal wolf hunting (Browne-
Nuñez et al., ), or that public wolf-hunting schemes
will decrease illegal killing of the species (e.g., Chapron &
Treves, ; Suutarinen & Kojola, ).
Nonlethal methods such as livestock guarding dogs or
fences have been found effective in livestock protection
(see review in van Eeden et al., ), although only few
studies have had high quality experimental design (Eklund
et al., ). Yet, there was no relevant mechanism for
compensating the increased expenditure on preventive
measures by public funds in Slovakia, which can economi-
cally burden livestock breeders in higher-risk areas (Kutal
&Dula,), even when preventing wildlife attacks on
livestock is also a matter of animal welfare, included in
EU regulations on livestock welfare (López-Bao & Mateo-
Tom ás, ). Therefore, we urge for the generalized use
and support for the effective implementation and mainte-
nance of nonlethal interventions (Frank & Eklund, ),
and for efforts in increasing acceptance of the use of these
measures among end-users (Eklund et al., ) in order to
facilitate the coexistence of wolves and livestock farmers in
this cultural landscape.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
MK and JVLB designed the study. MK led the writing of
the manuscript. MK, MD, and ARS collected and analyzed
data. JVLB and MK ran the analyses. All authors reviewed
and commented on the paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to the dedicated volunteers of Wolf Patrols
and staff of PLA Kysuce for their participation in field work
and to the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KUTAL  . 7of8
and National Forest Centre for providing data on livestock
damages and hunting counts. We also acknowledge com-
ments of four anonymous reviewers that helped to increase
the quality of the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are
openly available at https://zenodo.org/doi/./zenodo.
 .
ETHICS STATEMENT
The search for and sampling of scats involved noninvasive
methods did not affect the studied animals.
ORCID
Miroslav Kutal https://orcid.org/---
Martin Duľa https://orcid.org/---
Alisa Royer Selivanova https://orcid.org/--
-X
José Vicente López-Bao https://orcid.org/--
-X
REFERENCES
Antal, V., Boroš, M., Čertíková, M., Ciberej, J., Dóczy, J., Finďo,
S., Kaštier, P., Kropil, R., Lukáč, J., Molnár, L., Paule, L., Rigg,
R., Rybanič, R., & Šramka, Š. (). Program starostlivosti o
vlka dravého (Canis lupus) na Slovensku. Štátna ochrana prírody
Slovenskej republiky.
Boitani, L., Kaczensky, P., Alvares, F., Andrén, H., Balys, V., Blanco,
J. C., Chapron, G., Chiriac, S., Cirovic, D., Drouet-Houguet, N.,
Groff, C., Huber, D., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Kojola, I., Krofel,
M., Kutal, M., Linnell, J., Majic, A., .. . Patkó, L. (). Assess-
ment of the conservation status of the Wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe.
Council of Europe.
Bradley, E. H., Robinson, H. S., Bangs, E. E., Kunkel, K., Jimenez,
M. D., Gude, J. A., & Grimm, T. (). Effects of Wolf removal on
livestock depredation recurrence and Wolf recovery in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management,79,
.
Browne-Nuñez, C., Treves, A., MacFarland, D., Voyles, Z., & Turng,
C. (). Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods
examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclina-
tions. Biological Conservation,189,.
Černecký, J., Čuláková, J., Ďuricová, V., Saxa, A., Andráš, P., Ulrych,
L., Šuvada, R., Galvánková, J., Lešová, A., & Havranová, I. ().
Conservation status of habitats and species of community interest
in the period of 2013 –2018 in the Slovak Republic. State Nature
Conservancy od Slovak Republic.
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., Arx, M., von, Huber,
D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders,
O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J.
C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., . . .
Boitani, L. (). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern
human-dominated landscapes. Science,346,.
Chapron, G., & López-Bao, J. V. (). Conserving carnivores:
Politics in play. Science,343, –.
Chapron, G., & Treves, A. ().Blood does not buy goodwill: Allow-
ing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,283, .
DeCesare, N. J., Wilson, S. M., Bradley, E. H., Gude, J. A., Inman,
R. M., Lance, N. J., Laudon, K., Nelson, A. A., Ross, M. S., &
Smucker, T. D. (). Wolf-livestock conflict and the effects of
wolf management. Journal of Wildlife Management,82,.
Delibes-Mateos, M. (). Wolf media coverage in the region of
castilla y León (Spain): Variations over time and in two contrasting
socio-ecological settings. Animals,10,.
Eionet Portal. (). Article  web tool: Species assessments
at Member State level [WWW Document]. https://nature-
art.eionet.europa.eu/article/species/report/?period=&group
=Mammals&country=SK&region=
Eklund, A., Johansson, M., Flykt, A., Andrén, H., & Frank, J. ().
Believed effect—A prerequisite but not a guarantee for acceptance
of carnivore management interventions. Biological Conservation,
241,.
Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G., & Frank, J.
(). Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to
reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific Reports,
7(), .
Epstein, Y.,Christiernsson, A., López-Bao, J. V., & Chapron, G. ().
When is it legal to hunt strictly protected species in the European
Union? Conservation Science and Practice,1(). https://doi.org/.
/csp.
Epstein, Y., López-Bao, J. V., & Chapron,G. (). A legal-ecological
understanding of favorable conservation status for species in
Europe. Conservation Letters,9, –.
Ferraro, d. E., & Bombieri, G. (). Wolf management in Italy
and Europe with a focus on management in France, Austria
and Slovenia [WWW Document]. Io non ho paura del lupo.
https://www.iononhopauradellupo.it/en/la-gestione-del-lupo-
in-italia-e-in-europa-con-un-approfondimento-sulla-gestione-
in-francia-austria-e-slovenia/
Finďo, S., & Chovancová, B. (). Home ranges of two wolf packs
in the Slovak Carpathians. Folia Zoologica,53(), –.
Finďo, S., Petráš, R., & Šebeň, V. (). Ochrana lesa proti škodám
zverou. Lesnícky výskumný ústav.
Frank, J., & Eklund, A. (). Poor construction, not time, takes its
toll on subsidised fences designed to deter large carnivores. PLoS
ONE,12(), e.
Grente, O. (). Understanding the depredation process in grey wolf
(Canis lupus) and its interactions with lethal measures: Focus on the
French Alpine Arc. PhD dissertation, Université Montpellier.
Guimarães, N. F., Álvares, F., Ďurová, J., Urban, P., Bučko, J., Iľko,
T., Brndiar, J., Štofik, J., Pataky, T., Barančeková, M., Kropil, R., &
Smolko, P. (). What drives wolf preference towards wild ungu-
lates? Insights from a multi-prey system in the Slovak Carpathians.
PLoS ONE,17,e.
Jędrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Theuerkauf, J., Jędrzejewska, B., &
Kowalczyk, R. (). Territory size of wolves Canis lupus:Link-
ing local (Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland) and Holarctic-scale
patterns. Ecography,30(), –.
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8of8 KUTAL  .
Kiffner, C., Chapron, G., & König, H. J. (). Germany’s wolves in
the crosshairs. Science,365, .
Kompaniyets, L., & Evans, M. A. (). Modeling the relationship
between wolf control and cattle depredation. PLoS ONE,12(),
e.
Krofel, M., Černe, R., & Jerina, K. (). Učinkovitost odstrela volkov
(Canis lupus) kot ukrepa za zmanjševanje škode na domačih
živalih—Effectiveness of wolf (Canis lupus) culling to reduce
livestock depredations. Zbornik Gozdarstva in Lesarstva,95,.
Kutal, M., & Dula, M. (). Evidence-based hunting policy needed
in Slovakia. Science,370,.
Kutal, M., Váňa, M., Suchomel, J., Chapron, G., & Lopez-Bao, J.
(). Trans-boundary edge effects in the western Carpathians:
The influence of hunting on large carnivore occupancy. PLoS
ONE,11, e.
Lennox, R. J., Gallagher, A. J., Ritchie, E. G., & Cooke, S. J. ().
Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone
world. Biological Conservation,224,.
López-Bao, J. V., & Mateo-Tomás, P. (). Strengthening livestock
welfare policies to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conserva-
tion Letters,15,e.
Lorand, C., Robert, A., Gastineau, A., Mihoub, J.-B., & Bessa-Gomes,
C. (). Effectiveness of interventions for managing human-
large carnivore conflicts worldwide: Scare them off, don’t remove
them. Science of the Total Environment,138, .
Lute, M. L., & Attari, S. Z. (). Public preferences for species con-
servation: Choosing between lethal control, habitat protection and
no action. Environmental Conservation,44,.
Lute, M. L., Carter, N. H., López-Bao, J. V., & Linnell, J. D. C. ().
Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with
large carnivores but not on solutions. Biological Conservation,218,
–.
Mayer, M., Olsen, K., Schulz, B., Matzen, J., Nowak, C., Thomsen, P.
F., Hansen, M. M., Vedel-Smith, C., & Sunde, P. ().Occurrence
and livestock depredation patterns by wolves in highly cultivated
landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,10,.
Newsome, T. M., Boitani, L., Chapron, G., Ciucci, P., Dickman, C.
R., Dellinger, J. A., López-Bao, J. V., Peterson, R. O., Shores, C. R.,
Wirsing, A. J., & Ripple, W. J. (). Food habits of the world’s
grey wolves. Mammal Review,46,.
Nowak, S., & Mysłajek, R. W. (). Wolf recovery and population
dynamics in Western. Mammal Research,61,.
Nowak, S., Mysłajek, R. W., Kłosińska, A., & Gabryś, G. ().
Diet and prey selection of wolves (Canis lupus) recolonising
Western and Central Poland. Mammalian Biology—Zeitschrift für
Säugetierkd,76, –.
Popescu, V., Pop, M., Chiriac, S., & Rozylowicz, L. (). Romanian
carnivores at a crossroads. Science,364,.
Poudyal, N., Baral, N., & Asah, S. T. (). Wolf lethal control
and livestock depredations: Counter-evidence from respecified
models. PLoS ONE,11,.
Santiago-Avila, F. J., Cornman, A. M., & Treves, A. (). Killing
wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but
harm neighbors. PLoS ONE,13,.
Singer, L., Wietlisbach, X., Hickisch, R., Schoell, E. M., Leuenberger,
C., van den Broek, A., Désalme, M., Driesen, K., Lyly, M., Marucco,
F.,Kutal,M.,Pagon,N.,Papp,C.R.,Milioni,P.,Uzdras,R.,
Zihmanis, I., Zimmermann, F., Marsden, K., Hackländer, K.,
.. . Wegmann, D. (). The spatial distribution and temporal
trends of livestock damages caused by wolves in Europe. Biological
Conservation,282,.
Suutarinen, S., & Kojola, I. (). Poaching regulates the legally
hunted wolf population in Finland. Biological Conservation,215,
–.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., & Mcmanus, J. (). Predator control should
not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
14, –.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., Ohrens, O., & van Eeden, L. M. (). Preda-
tor control needs a standard of unbiased randomized experiments
with cross-over design. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,7,
–. https://doi.org/./fevo..
Treves, A., Santiago-Ávila, F. J., & Putrevu, K. (). Quantifying
the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal
management. PeerJ,7, e.
van Eeden, L. M., Eklund, A., Miller, J. R. B., López-Bao, J. V.,
Chapron, G., Cejtin, M. R., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R.,
Frank, J., Krofel, M., Macdonald, D. W., McManus, J., Meyer, T.
K., Middleton, A. D., Newsome, T. M., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E. G.,
Schmitz, O. J., Stoner, K. J., . .. Treves, A. (). Carnivore conser-
vation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLoS Biology,16,
e.
Vucetich, J., & Nelson, M. P. (). Wolf hunting and the ethics
of predator control. In L. Kalof (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Animal Studies (pp. –). Oxford Academic.
Vucetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., Nelson, M. P., Peterson, R. O., &
Bump, J. K. (). Evaluating the principles of wildlife conser-
vation: A case study of Wolf (Canis lupus) hunting in Michigan,
United States. Journal of Mammalogy,98,.
Wielgus, R. B., & Peebles, K. A. (). Effects of wolf mortality on
livestock depredations. PLoS ONE,9, e–e.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: Kutal, M., Duľa, M.,
Selivanova, A. R., & López-Bao, J. V. (). Testing
a conservation compromise: No evidence that
public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock
losses. Conservation Letters, e.
https://doi.org/./conl.
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12994 by Cochrane Czech Republic, Wiley Online Library on [19/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
... The intra-site comparison they used, 69 also called before-after control impact study design, intends to reduce the risks for confounding 70 factors of inter-site comparison because these risks are generally higher across space than across 71 time. Kutal et al. (2023) was the only study to mix inter-site and intra-site comparisons, by 72 combining comparisons before and after hunting season and between sites with and without hunted 73 ...
... pack territory in Bradley et al. (2015)) or large scale (e.g. 82 711 km² in Kutal et al. (2023)) could be used for space, sometimes within the same study (e.g. 83 ...
... Blejwas et al. (2002)) to two years (e.g. Kutal et al., 2023) Within the 2011-2020 studied period, lethal removals were for a large majority executed in south-134 east France. Only three lethal removals were outside this area and concerned lone wolves which 135 dispersed far and whose territories were very isolated. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Evaluating the efficiency of lethal control of large carnivores such as wolves to reduce attacks on livestock is important given the controversy surrounding this measure. We used retrospective data over 10 years and an intra-site comparison approach to evaluate the effects of lethal control on the distribution of attack intensities in the French Alps. We analyzed 278 legal killings of wolves between 2011 and 2020 and the 6110 attacks that occurred during a period of +/- 90 days and within 10 km around these lethal removals. This large number of attacks allowed us to perform an original framework that combined both continuous spatial and temporal scales through 3D kernel estimation. We also controlled the analysis for livestock presence, and explored different analysis subsets of removals in relation to their locations, dates and proximity to other removals. This statistical method provided an efficient visualization of attack intensity spatio-temporal distribution before and after removals. A decrease of the intensity of attacks was the most common result after the lethal removals of wolves. However, this outcome was not systematic for all subsets and depended on the scale of the analysis. In addition, attacks tended to persist after removals while showing frequent interruptions in time after but also before removals. We also observed localized positive trends of attack intensities at varying distances from removals after they occurred. To summarize, our results showed that considering the scale of the analysis is crucial and that effects should be analyzed separately for each local context. As a next step, we recommend to move forward from patterns to mechanisms by linking the effects of lethal control on wolves to their effects on attacks through analysis of fine-scaled data on wolves and livestock.
... The substance dimension can comprise technical solutions aimed at reducing tangible damages caused by wildlife, e.g. electric fences or guarding dogs for livestock in the case of large carnivore conservation (Naughton- Treves et al. 2003, Reinhardt et al. 2012, Eklund et al. 2017, Van Eden et al. 2018, Bruns et al. 2020, Oliveira et al. 2021, Kutal et al. 2023, Marsden et al. 2023 or information about best behavior when encountering large carnivores to avoid damage to humans. Part of the process dimension are factors that relate to decision-making design, equity and authority, and how (and by whom) these are exercised, for example, the development of widely accepted and followed reporting and decision-making processes (e.g. ...
Article
Full-text available
Monitoring and evaluation practices, demanded by nature conservation project donors, often focus on practical outputs, leaving the assessment of intended short and medium‐term outcomes and long‐term impacts challenging. This study employs a merger of the conflict intervention triangle model (CITM) and its three dimensions relationship, substance, and process, together with the logical framework approach (LFA) within the context of a human–wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) project (LIFE EuroLargeCarnivores) in order to assess project correlated outcomes on stakeholder level over time. Two stakeholder surveys were conducted across 14 project partner countries, capturing baseline perceptions in 2018 and assessing changes in 2021. To assess the actual influence of the project with its focus on conflict mitigation, we applied an ex post counterfactual analysis. Results indicate positive developments in all dimensions of the CITM. The influence of the project is demonstrated by statistically significant differences in response behavior between participants and non‐participants of project interventions. The overall outcome regarding beliefs in satisfactory future management of increasing large carnivore populations, is more intricate. Significant differences are observed among three selected main stakeholder categories over the project's timeframe. While nature conservationists maintain high confidence levels, confidence of hunters and livestock raisers declined. However, results for participants of project interventions depict a significantly lower decline in confidence compared to non‐participants. Based on our findings, we provide insights how to efficiently evaluate outcomes of HWCC projects, offering recommendations for wildlife conservation practitioners. We conclude that HWCC projects are important also and especially in times of unfavorable frame conditions. Rigorous evaluation methods are essential to ensure efficient use of resources in order to maximize the outcomes of HWCC projects. The study highlights the need for long‐term evaluation to assess broader impacts at country, regional, and sector levels.
Article
Full-text available
Conflicts between large сarnivores and humans have been common in mountainous regions, with the Carpathians being particularly affected. Recently, interest among researchers and wildlife managers in studying and managing these conflicts has grown significantly. Unfortunately, the coexistence between humans and wildlife and its implications for nature and society have been largely overlooked in Ukraine. This study analyzed conflicts between large carnivores (Canis lupus, Ursus arctos and Lynx lynx) and farmers/beekeepers within designated model territories in the Ukrainian Carpathians, focusing on the effectiveness of conflict prevention strategies implemented between 2018 and 2023. Among the stakeholders analyzed, 79.0% were farmers (livestock owners) and 21.0% were beekeepers. It was observed that 73.0% of farms and apiaries experienced conflicts with large carnivores during the study period; incidents included 64.8% with wolf attacks, 31.3% with bear attacks, and 24.2% with lynx attacks. Notably, conflicts involving livestock owners and large carnivores decreased nearly fivefold, from 54.9% in 2018 to 11.0% in 2023. Similarly, bear-related conflicts among beekeepers nearly halved, from 29.2% to 16.8%. The adoption of electric fences significantly increased among farms and apiaries from none to 33.9%, and the proportion of farmers using dogs for livestock protection without experiencing large carnivore conflicts rose from 3.3% to 20.9%. These pilot findings highlight the effectiveness of such measures in reducing conflicts and improving coexistence quality. The results provide valuable insights into the structure, dynamics, and spatial distribution of conflicts in the Ukrainian Carpathians, underscoring their importance for the conservation of rare species and the implementation of effective management strategies for wild animal populations, sustainable farming, and habitat conservation in regions inhabited by large carnivores. An integrated approach that considers the needs of both human communities and wildlife, involving collaboration among scientific bodies, public organizations, and government entities at various levels, is crucial for devising and executing effective conflict management strategies in diverse landscapes.
Preprint
Full-text available
The population density of large carnivores is a crucial factor influencing livestock losses; however, existing research on this subject has produced conflicting results. Our study aimed to investigate the relationship between the population density of brown bears and Eurasian wolves and the resulting losses in sheep and goats due to these predators. We also compared the livestock losses caused by wolves and bears during a single attack. Our dataset comprised 1,285 wolf and 539 bear attacks recorded from 2007 to 2021. Over this period, wolves killed 6,286, and bears killed 1,345 sheep and goats. To assess the relationship between the mean density of large carnivores and the number of depredation events or combined sheep and goat losses, we employed a generalized linear model (GLM) with a log-link and a negative binomial error distribution. Additionally, we utilized a negative binomial generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to compare differences in the mean number of animals killed per depredation event. Our results reveal an increase in sheep and goat losses and depredation events correlated with a consistent rise in wolf density. However, this pattern did not hold for bear density, as losses caused by bears significantly declined with an increase in their density. The mean number of sheep and goats killed per attack was higher for wolves (4.86) than for bears (2.48). Our research suggests that livestock damage may not necessarily escalate with an increase in the population density of predators, highlighting differences between wolves and bears.
Article
Full-text available
Wolf populations are recovering and expanding across Europe, causing conflicts with livestock owners. Here we compiled incident-based livestock damage data across 21 countries for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, during which 39,262 wolf-caused incidents were reported from 470 administrative regions. We found substantial regional variation in all aspects of the data, including the primary target species, the density of damages, their seasonal distribution, and their temporal trend. More than half of the variation in damage densities across regions was explained by the area of extensively cultivated habitats occupied by wolves, namely natural grasslands and broad-leaved forests. Regional variation in husbandry practices and damage prevention, while difficult to quantify at a continental scale, appear important factors to further modulate these incidents. As illustrated with detailed data from Germany, a relationship between the number of wolf units and damages diminished over time, suggesting some adaptation of livestock owners and local authorities to their presence, for example by increasing prevention efforts. As we argue, temporal trends of damage incidents, which are robust to variation in data collection across regions, are thus informative about the local intensity of the wolf-human conflict. We estimated increasing trends for the majority of regions, reflecting the current expansion of wolves across the continent. Nonetheless, many of these increases were moderate and for more than one third of all regions, trends were negative despite growing wolf populations, thus indicating that wolf-livestock conflicts can be successfully mitigated with proper management.
Article
Full-text available
The wolf is a generalist-opportunistic predator that displays diverse and remarkably adaptable feeding strategies across its range with local adaptations to certain prey species depending on their availability and vulnerability. The multi-prey system of the Slovak Carpathians supports important portion of the European wolf population; however, it has been markedly understudied. We evaluated winter diet composition and prey selection of Slovak wolves based on 321 scat samples collected between September–April within four different study areas during 2015–2017. The winter diet of wolves in the Slovak Carpathians was characterized by a 98% occurrence of wild large-sized and medium-sized ungulates with red deer occurring in wolf scats most often, consistent with their highest density among other wild ungulates. However, by comparing the consumption with availability of wild prey, we found that wolves in fact selected for wild boar especially in areas with higher altitudinal range, while selected for red deer in areas with low altitudinal range where this prey species was more spatially predictable. Although wolves showed the potential to switch between red deer and wild boar when their density increases, we found that this variation can be rather linked to changing prey vulnerability, which is dependent on particular environmental conditions at local scale such as topography and snow accumulation. The present study provides valuable insights into the winter foraging ecology of Slovak wolves in a multi-prey system of the Carpathians and allows for practical implications in the management of the rapidly increasing populations of wild ungulates across Europe.
Article
Full-text available
Attacks by large predators on livestock are an important driver of conflicts. Consequently, knowledge about where predators occur, where livestock depredation takes place and what factors influence it will aid the mitigation of stakeholder conflicts. Following legal protection, wolves (Canis lupus) in Central Europe are recently spreading to areas dominated by agriculture, bringing them in closer contact with livestock. Here, we analyzed habitat selection and livestock depredation rates of 43 wolves identified by genotyping on the Jutland peninsula, consisting of mainland Denmark and the northernmost German federal state Schleswig-Holstein. Occupancy by resident wolves correlated positively with forest and other non-forested semi-natural land cover (habitat for natural ungulate prey), whereas occupancy by non-resident wolves correlated with increasing forest cover and sheep density. The latter effect likely reflected increased sampling probability of highly mobile dispersers killing livestock. We recorded 565 livestock depredation events (85 in Denmark and 480 in Schleswig-Holstein), of which 42% (55 in DK and 185 in SH) could be assigned to 27 individual wolves based on DNA evidence. Livestock (mostly sheep) were killed by wolves in 16% of the study area. Our results indicate that wolves mostly killed livestock as a context-dependent response, i.e., being dispersers in agricultural areas with low availability of wild ungulate prey and high livestock densities, and not because of behavioral preferences for sheep. Moreover, the livestock depredation was lower in areas with livestock protection measures (implemented in areas with established pairs/packs). We conclude that while wolf attacks on livestock in established wolf territories generally can be reduced through improvement of fences, livestock depredation by non-resident wolves in agricultural areas constitutes a bigger challenge. Albeit technically possible, the economic costs of implementing predator-proof fences and other preventive measures in such pastoral areas infrequently visited by wolves will be considerable. Experiences so far further indicate that lethal removal of identified “problem wolves” may be inefficient in practice.
Thesis
Full-text available
After its disappearance from France around the 1950s, the grey wolf (Canis lupus) has returned and is now settled throughout the French Alpine Arc. Its predations on livestock, called depredations, have increased across time since its recolonisation of the region. Depredations mostly concern sheep within the context of pastoralism. The depredation process creates conflicts between wolf conservation and pastoral activities. Besides financial compensations of depredation losses and subsidies for non-lethal protective measures of flocks, France has added another tool of mitigation: lethal removals of wolves. Uncertainty remains about the efficiency of lethal measures to reduce the depredations levels, whether it is in France or elsewhere where these measures are applied. Two opposite assumptions are currently made. The first assumption supports that lethal measures are efficient through population reduction and selection of wolves less likely to depredate. The second assumption supports that lethal measures are counter-productive because of pack disruption which in turn increase the needs of wolves to rely on livestock. The reason for the uncertainty about the effects of lethal measures is the combination of a low number of studies on the subject and a weak scientific inference, thus producing contradictory results. Moreover, most studies have focused on the North American situation. My work consisted in reducing the uncertainty about the effects of lethal measures on the recorded successful depredations on sheep in France. We adopted two approaches. First, we developed an individual-based modelling approach to study the whole dynamic induced by lethal measures on the wolf population structure and on depredations.We integrated biological mechanisms as pack dissolution that were never integrated before. We tested different scenarios of depredation behaviour of wolves. Our model supported that the modelled lethal measures were efficient to reduce depredations through population size reduction 1) when the individual probability of depredation was increasing for wolves in pack because of increasing food needs or 2) when, in addition, it was also increasing for adult wolves and with pack size, to mimic hunting abilities. On the other hand, our model did not allow us to conclude on the effects of lethal measures when the individual probability of depredation was decreasing for adults or with pack size. Second, we analysed the effect of the deaths of wolves on the depredation levels in France with data provided by the French administration. We developed a methodology based on kernel calculations. We concluded that the effect of culling in France was highly variable according to contexts. The majority of the results involved a reduction of the depredations, but could also involve no effect or an increase of the depredations. Finally, we added a retrospective analysis of the depredation spatial pattern in France by adjusting for spatial and temporal sheep distributions and flock sizes. We concluded that hotspots likely did not result from the unique factor of wolf territoriality.We also observed that depredations tended to homogenise across time in the French Alpine Arc. The method finally allowed us to spot hotspots encompassing small flocks or grazing over a short period, which would have remained unspotted with the current hotspot determination of the French administration. Thus, this work shows that the local context, linked to environmental, wolf and pastoral variables, needs to be taken into consideration for the management of depredations, because lethal measures are unlikely to have a unique effect on wolves and their depredations.
Article
Full-text available
Predators and their protection are controversial worldwide. Gray wolves, Canis lupus , lost U.S. federal protection (delisting) and the State of Wisconsin began lethal management first among all states and tribes that regained authority over wolves. Here we evaluated the initial success of reaching the state’s explicit objective, “…to allow for a sustainable harvest that neither increases nor decreases the state’s wolf population…” We used official state figures for hunter-killed wolves, population estimates from April 2017–2020, and the latest peer-reviewed model of individual wolf survival to estimate additional deaths resulting from federal delisting. More than half of the additional deaths were predicted to be cryptic poaching under the assumption that this period resembled past periods of liberalized wolf-killing in Wisconsin. We used a precautionary approach to construct three conservative scenarios to predict the current status of this wolf population and a minimum estimate of population decline since April 2020. From our scenarios that vary in growth rates and additional mortality estimates, we expect a maximum of 695–751 wolves to be alive in Wisconsin by 15 April 2021, a minimum 27–33% decline in the preceding 12 months. This contradicts the state expectation of no change in the population size. We draw a conclusion about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms under state control of wolves and discuss the particular governance conditions met in Wisconsin. We recommend greater rigor and independent review of the science used by agencies to plan wolf hunting quotas and methods. We recommend clearer division of duties between state wildlife agencies, legislatures, and courts. We recommend federal governments reconsider the practice of sudden deregulation of wolf management and instead recommend they consider protecting predators as non-game or transition more slowly to subnational authority, to avoid the need for emergency relisting.
Article
Full-text available
Hunting wolves is legal in Slovakia unless it threatens populations, but available data are insufficient to determine its effects.
Article
Full-text available
People's attitudes towards large carnivores, and thus public support for their conservation, can be influenced by how these species are framed in the media. Therefore, assessing media coverage of large carnivores is of particular interest for their coexistence with humans. I used content analysis to assess how the grey wolf was portrayed in a newspaper in northern Spain, how wolf media coverage varied over time (2006-2017), and in two different socio-ecological settings. Most documents addressed the conflictive relationship between the wolf and livestock (60%; n = 902). Moreover, coverage of this relationship increased over the study period in the south of the study area, where the wolf is strictly protected, has recolonised new localities, and damage to livestock has increased. Overall, other topics, such as wolf conservation or hunting, appeared much less frequently in the media, but predominated in the north of the study area, where the wolf is more abundant and huntable. Conflictive issues like wolf-livestock interactions are generally attractive for audiences, but drawing attention to this issue may compromise the management of conflicts associated with wolves. Ideally, the media should promote potential wolf conservation values if coexistence between wolves and humans is sought.
Article
Full-text available
Rapid, global changes, such as extinction and climate change, put a premium on evidence-based, environmental policies and interventions, including predator control efforts. Lack of solid scientific evidence precludes strong inference about responses of predators, people, and prey of both, to various types of predator control. Here we formulate two opposing hypotheses with possible underlying mechanisms and propose experiments to test four pairs of opposed predictions about responses of predators, domestic animals, and people in a coupled, dynamic system. We outline the design of a platinum-standard experiment, namely randomized, controlled experiment with cross-over design and multiple steps to blind measurement, analysis, and peer review to avoid pervasive biases. The gold-standard has been proven feasible in field experiments with predators and livestock, so we call for replicating that across the world on different methods of predator control, in addition to striving for an even higher standard that can improve reproducibility and reliability of the science of predator control.
Article
Human-wildlife conflicts are associated with a threat to large carnivores, as well as with economic and social costs, thus challenging conservation management around the world. In this study, we explored the effectiveness of common management interventions used worldwide for the purpose of conflict reduction using an evidence-based framework combining expert assessment of intervention effectiveness, impact and uncertainty of assessment. We first conducted a literature review of human-large carnivore conflicts across the world. Based on this review, we identified three main types of management interventions (non-lethal, translocations, and lethal management) and we assessed their effectiveness. Our review indicates that, although the characteristics of conflicts with large carnivores are heavily influenced by the local context and the species, the main issues are depredation on livestock, space-sharing, and attacks on humans. Non-lethal interventions are more likely to reduce conflict, whereas translocations and lethal interventions are mostly ineffective and/or harmful to carnivore populations, without fostering successful long-term coexistence. The literature on conflict management is often imprecise and lacks consistency between studies or situations, which generally makes comparisons difficult. Our protocol allows for the reliable comparison of experiments characterized by heterogeneous standards, response variables, protocols, and quality of evidence. Nevertheless, we encourage the use of systematic protocols with common good standards in order to provide more reliable empirical evidence. This would clarify the relative effectiveness of conflict management strategies and contribute to the global reduction in the occurrence of human-large carnivore conflicts across the world.