26
|
Santiago-Avila FJ, Cornman AM, Treves A. Correction: Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0209716. [PMID: 30566489 PMCID: PMC6300252 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
27
|
Artelle KA, Reynolds JD, Treves A, Walsh JC, Paquet PC, Darimont CT. Working constructively toward an improved North American approach to wildlife management. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2018; 4:eaav2571. [PMID: 30306136 PMCID: PMC6170033 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav2571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2018] [Accepted: 08/31/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Mawdsley et al. (2018) respond disapprovingly to our 2018 review of 667 wildlife management systems across Canada and the United States, which found that many of these systems lacked the scientific hallmarks of clear objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. Although we strongly agree with several of Mawdsley et al.'s points about the role of science in management, their response suggests confusion about three elements of our approach that we clarify herein: (i) the selection of hallmarks, (ii) the role of science in wildlife management, and (iii) our engagement with wildlife agencies. We contend that both critics and defenders of the current approach to wildlife management in Canada and the United States similarly desire rigorous management that achieves social and ecological benefits. Our original study-which used a clear approach to define hallmarks of science-based management, employed a reasonable set of indicator criteria to test for them, and was based on data available to the general public on whose behalf management is conducted-found evidence that the current approach falls short. However, it also provided a framework for addressing shortcomings moving forward. We suggest that advancing discussion on the operational role of science in management, including clarifying what "science-based management" actually means, could curtail practitioners and critics of the status quo talking over each other's heads and encourage all parties to work constructively to improve the governance of wildlife at a continental scale.
Collapse
|
28
|
van Eeden LM, Eklund A, Miller JRB, López-Bao JV, Chapron G, Cejtin MR, Crowther MS, Dickman CR, Frank J, Krofel M, Macdonald DW, McManus J, Meyer TK, Middleton AD, Newsome TM, Ripple WJ, Ritchie EG, Schmitz OJ, Stoner KJ, Tourani M, Treves A. Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLoS Biol 2018; 16:e2005577. [PMID: 30226872 PMCID: PMC6143182 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005577] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods. Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods. For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation. An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations.
Collapse
|
29
|
Darimont CT, Paquet PC, Treves A, Artelle KA, Chapron G. Political populations of large carnivores. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2018; 32:747-749. [PMID: 29363171 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2016] [Revised: 10/20/2017] [Accepted: 11/10/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
|
30
|
Artelle KA, Reynolds JD, Treves A, Walsh JC, Paquet PC, Darimont CT. Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2018; 4:eaao0167. [PMID: 29532032 PMCID: PMC5842039 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aao0167] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2017] [Accepted: 02/02/2018] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
31
|
Santiago-Avila FJ, Cornman AM, Treves A. Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0189729. [PMID: 29320512 PMCID: PMC5761834 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2017] [Accepted: 11/30/2017] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Large carnivores, such as gray 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 and used 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 an insignificant 27% lower risk of recurrence of events at trapping sites, but offset by an insignificant 22% increase in risk of recurrence at sites up to 5.42 km distant in the same year, compared to the non-lethal treatment. 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 is incomplete because neighbors near trapping sites may suffer the recurrence of depredations. We propose two new hypotheses for perceived effectiveness of lethal methods: (a) killing predators may be perceived as effective because of the benefits to a small minority of farmers, and (b) if neighbors experience side-effects of lethal intervention such as displaced depredations, they may perceive the problem growing and then demand more lethal intervention rather than detecting problems spreading from the first trapping site. Ethical wildlife management guided by the “best 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 and elsewhere.
Collapse
|
32
|
Chapron G, Treves A. Reply to comments by Olson et al. 2017 and Stien 2017. Proc Biol Sci 2017; 284:rspb.2017.1743. [PMID: 29167362 PMCID: PMC5719172 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2017] [Accepted: 10/20/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
|
33
|
Carroll C, Hartl B, Goldman GT, Rohlf DJ, Treves A, Kerr JT, Ritchie EG, Kingsford RT, Gibbs KE, Maron M, Watson JEM. Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2017; 31:967-975. [PMID: 28741747 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2016] [Revised: 05/16/2017] [Accepted: 05/19/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
34
|
Chapron G, Treves A. Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proc Biol Sci 2017; 283:rspb.2015.2939. [PMID: 27170719 PMCID: PMC4874699 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2015] [Accepted: 04/01/2016] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Quantifying environmental crime and the effectiveness of policy interventions is difficult because perpetrators typically conceal evidence. To prevent illegal uses of natural resources, such as poaching endangered species, governments have advocated granting policy flexibility to local authorities by liberalizing culling or hunting of large carnivores. We present the first quantitative evaluation of the hypothesis that liberalizing culling will reduce poaching and improve population status of an endangered carnivore. We show that allowing wolf (Canis lupus) culling was substantially more likely to increase poaching than reduce it. Replicated, quasi-experimental changes in wolf policies in Wisconsin and Michigan, USA, revealed that a repeated policy signal to allow state culling triggered repeated slowdowns in wolf population growth, irrespective of the policy implementation measured as the number of wolves killed. The most likely explanation for these slowdowns was poaching and alternative explanations found no support. When the government kills a protected species, the perceived value of each individual of that species may decline; so liberalizing wolf culling may have sent a negative message about the value of wolves or acceptability of poaching. Our results suggest that granting management flexibility for endangered species to address illegal behaviour may instead promote such behaviour.
Collapse
|
35
|
Treves A, Artelle KA, Darimont CT, Parsons DR. Mismeasured mortality: correcting estimates of wolf poaching in the United States. J Mammal 2017; 98:1256-1264. [PMID: 30135609 PMCID: PMC6093422 DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyx052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2017] [Accepted: 04/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Measuring rates and causes of mortalities is important in animal ecology and management. Observing the fates of known individuals is a common method of estimating life history variables, including mortality patterns. It has long been assumed that data lost when known animals disappear were unbiased. We test and reject this assumption under conditions common to most, if not all, studies using marked animals. We illustrate the bias for 4 endangered wolf populations in the United States by reanalyzing data and assumptions about the known and unknown fates of marked wolves to calculate the degree to which risks of different causes of death were mismeasured. We find that, when using traditional methods, the relative risk of mortality from legal killing measured as a proportion of all known fates was overestimated by 0.05–0.16 and the relative risk of poaching was underestimated by 0.17–0.44. We show that published government estimates are affected by these biases and, importantly, are underestimating the risk of poaching. The underestimates have obscured the magnitude of poaching as the major threat to endangered wolf populations. We offer methods to correct estimates of mortality risk for marked animals of any taxon and describe the conditions under which traditional methods produce more or less bias. We also show how correcting past and future estimates of mortality parameters can address uncertainty about wildlife populations and increase the predictability and sustainability of wildlife management interventions.
Collapse
|
36
|
|
37
|
Carter NH, López-Bao JV, Bruskotter JT, Gore M, Chapron G, Johnson A, Epstein Y, Shrestha M, Frank J, Ohrens O, Treves A. A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores. AMBIO 2017; 46:251-264. [PMID: 27854069 PMCID: PMC5347529 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-016-0852-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2016] [Revised: 08/31/2016] [Accepted: 11/02/2016] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
The growing complexity and global nature of wildlife poaching threaten the survival of many species worldwide and are outpacing conservation efforts. Here, we reviewed proximal and distal factors, both social and ecological, driving illegal killing or poaching of large carnivores at sites where it can potentially occur. Through this review, we developed a conceptual social-ecological system framework that ties together many of the factors influencing large carnivore poaching. Unlike most conservation action models, an important attribute of our framework is the integration of multiple factors related to both human motivations and animal vulnerability into feedbacks. We apply our framework to two case studies, tigers in Laos and wolverines in northern Sweden, to demonstrate its utility in disentangling some of the complex features of carnivore poaching that may have hindered effective responses to the current poaching crisis. Our framework offers a common platform to help guide future research on wildlife poaching feedbacks, which has hitherto been lacking, in order to effectively inform policy making and enforcement.
Collapse
|
38
|
|
39
|
Treves A, Langenberg JA, López-Bao JV, Rabenhorst MF. Gray wolf mortality patterns in Wisconsin from 1979 to 2012. J Mammal 2017; 98:17-32. [PMID: 29674782 PMCID: PMC5901075 DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Starting in the 1970s, many populations of large-bodied mammalian carnivores began to recover from centuries of human-caused eradication and habitat destruction. The recovery of several such populations has since slowed or reversed due to mortality caused by humans. Illegal killing (poaching) is a primary cause of death in many carnivore populations. Law enforcement agencies face difficulties in preventing poaching and scientists face challenges in measuring it. Both challenges are exacerbated when evidence is concealed or ignored. We present data on deaths of 937 Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus) from October 1979 to April 2012 during a period in which wolves were recolonizing historic range mainly under federal government protection. We found and partially remedied sampling and measurement biases in the source data by reexamining necropsy reports and reconstructing the numbers and causes of some wolf deaths that were never reported. From 431 deaths and disappearances of radiocollared wolves aged > 7.5 months, we estimated human causes accounted for two-thirds of reported and reconstructed deaths, including poaching in 39-45%, vehicle collisions in 13%, legal killing by state agents in 6%, and nonhuman causes in 36-42%. Our estimate of poaching remained an underestimate because of persistent sources of uncertainty and systematic underreporting. Unreported deaths accounted for over two-thirds of all mortality annually among wolves > 7.5 months old. One-half of all poached wolves went unreported, or > 80% of poached wolves not being monitored by radiotelemetry went unreported. The annual mortality rate averaged 18% ± 10% for monitored wolves but 47% ± 19% for unmonitored wolves. That difference appeared to be due largely to radiocollaring being concentrated in the core areas of wolf range, as well as higher rates of human-caused mortality in the periphery of wolf range. We detected an average 4% decline in wolf population growth in the last 5 years of the study. Because our estimates of poaching risk and overall mortality rate exceeded official estimates after 2012, we present all data for transparency and replication. More recent additions of public hunting quotas after 2012 appear unsustainable without effective curtailment of poaching. Effective antipoaching enforcement will require more accurate estimates of poaching rate, location, and timing than currently available. Independent scientific review of methods and data will improve antipoaching policies for large carnivore conservation, especially for controversial species facing high levels of human-induced mortality.
Collapse
|
40
|
Treves A, Chapron G, López‐Bao JV, Shoemaker C, Goeckner AR, Bruskotter JT. Predators and the public trust. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2017; 92:248-270. [PMID: 26526656 PMCID: PMC5245106 DOI: 10.1111/brv.12227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2014] [Revised: 09/09/2015] [Accepted: 09/17/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Many democratic governments recognize a duty to conserve environmental resources, including wild animals, as a public trust for current and future citizens. These public trust principles have informed two centuries of U.S.A. Supreme Court decisions and environmental laws worldwide. Nevertheless numerous populations of large-bodied, mammalian carnivores (predators) were eradicated in the 20th century. Environmental movements and strict legal protections have fostered predator recoveries across the U.S.A. and Europe since the 1970s. Now subnational jurisdictions are regaining management authority from central governments for their predator subpopulations. Will the history of local eradication repeat or will these jurisdictions adopt public trust thinking and their obligation to broad public interests over narrower ones? We review the role of public trust principles in the restoration and preservation of controversial species. In so doing we argue for the essential roles of scientists from many disciplines concerned with biological diversity and its conservation. We look beyond species endangerment to future generations' interests in sustainability, particularly non-consumptive uses. Although our conclusions apply to all wild organisms, we focus on predators because of the particular challenges they pose for government trustees, trust managers, and society. Gray wolves Canis lupus L. deserve particular attention, because detailed information and abundant policy debates across regions have exposed four important challenges for preserving predators in the face of interest group hostility. One challenge is uncertainty and varied interpretations about public trustees' responsibilities for wildlife, which have created a mosaic of policies across jurisdictions. We explore how such mosaics have merits and drawbacks for biodiversity. The other three challenges to conserving wildlife as public trust assets are illuminated by the biology of predators and the interacting behavioural ecologies of humans and predators. The scientific community has not reached consensus on sustainable levels of human-caused mortality for many predator populations. This challenge includes both genuine conceptual uncertainty and exploitation of scientific debate for political gain. Second, human intolerance for predators exposes value conflicts about preferences for some wildlife over others and balancing majority rule with the protection of minorities in a democracy. We examine how differences between traditional assumptions and scientific studies of interactions between people and predators impede evidence-based policy. Even if the prior challenges can be overcome, well-reasoned policy on wild animals faces a greater challenge than other environmental assets because animals and humans change behaviour in response to each other in the short term. These coupled, dynamic responses exacerbate clashes between uses that deplete wildlife and uses that enhance or preserve wildlife. Viewed in this way, environmental assets demand sophisticated, careful accounting by disinterested trustees who can both understand the multidisciplinary scientific measurements of relative costs and benefits among competing uses, and justly balance the needs of all beneficiaries including future generations. Without public trust principles, future trustees will seldom prevail against narrow, powerful, and undemocratic interests. Without conservation informed by public trust thinking predator populations will face repeated cycles of eradication and recovery. Our conclusions have implications for the many subfields of the biological sciences that address environmental trust assets from the atmosphere to aquifers.
Collapse
|
41
|
Ripple WJ, Chapron G, López-Bao JV, Durant SM, Macdonald DW, Lindsey PA, Bennett EL, Beschta RL, Bruskotter JT, Campos-Arceiz A, Corlett RT, Darimont CT, Dickman AJ, Dirzo R, Dublin HT, Estes JA, Everatt KT, Galetti M, Goswami VR, Hayward MW, Hedges S, Hoffmann M, Hunter LTB, Kerley GIH, Letnic M, Levi T, Maisels F, Morrison JC, Nelson MP, Newsome TM, Painter L, Pringle RM, Sandom CJ, Terborgh J, Treves A, Van Valkenburgh B, Vucetich JA, Wirsing AJ, Wallach AD, Wolf C, Woodroffe R, Young H, Zhang L. Conserving the World's Megafauna and Biodiversity: The Fierce Urgency of Now. Bioscience 2017. [DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biw168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|
42
|
Chapron G, Treves A. Correction to 'Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore'. Proc Biol Sci 2016; 283:rspb.2016.2577. [PMID: 28003458 PMCID: PMC5204176 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2577] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
43
|
Ripple WJ, Chapron G, López-Bao JV, Durant SM, Macdonald DW, Lindsey PA, Bennett EL, Beschta RL, Bruskotter JT, Campos-Arceiz A, Corlett RT, Darimont CT, Dickman AJ, Dirzo R, Dublin HT, Estes JA, Everatt KT, Galetti M, Goswami VR, Hayward MW, Hedges S, Hoffmann M, Hunter LTB, Kerley GIH, Letnic M, Levi T, Maisels F, Morrison JC, Nelson MP, Newsome TM, Painter L, Pringle RM, Sandom CJ, Terborgh J, Treves A, Van Valkenburgh B, Vucetich JA, Wirsing AJ, Wallach AD, Wolf C, Woodroffe R, Young H, Zhang L. Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna. Bioscience 2016; 66:807-812. [PMID: 28533560 PMCID: PMC5421308 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biw092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|
44
|
|
45
|
Voyles Z, Treves A, MacFarland D. Spatiotemporal effects of nuisance black bear management actions in Wisconsin. URSUS 2015. [DOI: 10.2192/ursus-d-14-00038.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
46
|
Aleksić J, Ansoldi S, Antonelli LA, Antoranz P, Babic A, Bangale P, Barrio JA, González JB, Bednarek W, Bernardini E, Biasuzzi B, Biland A, Blanch O, Bonnefoy S, Bonnoli G, Borracci F, Bretz T, Carmona E, Carosi A, Colin P, Colombo E, Contreras JL, Cortina J, Covino S, Da Vela P, Dazzi F, De Angelis A, De Caneva G, De Lotto B, Wilhelmi EDO, Mendez CD, Prester DD, Dorner D, Doro M, Einecke S, Eisenacher D, Elsaesser D, Fonseca MV, Font L, Frantzen K, Fruck C, Galindo D, López RJG, Garczarczyk M, Terrats DG, Gaug M, Godinović N, Muñoz AG, Gozzini SR, Hadasch D, Hanabata Y, Hayashida M, Herrera J, Hildebrand D, Hose J, Hrupec D, Idec W, Kadenius V, Kellermann H, Kodani K, Konno Y, Krause J, Kubo H, Kushida J, La Barbera A, Lelas D, Lewandowska N, Lindfors E, Lombardi S, Longo F, López M, López-Coto R, López-Oramas A, Lorenz E, Lozano I, Makariev M, Mallot K, Maneva G, Mankuzhiyil N, Mannheim K, Maraschi L, Marcote B, Mariotti M, Martínez M, Mazin D, Menzel U, Miranda JM, Mirzoyan R, Moralejo A, Munar-Adrover P, Nakajima D, Niedzwiecki A, Nilsson K, Nishijima K, Noda K, Orito R, Overkemping A, Paiano S, Palatiello M, Paneque D, Paoletti R, Paredes JM, Paredes-Fortuny X, Persic M, Poutanen J, Moroni PGP, Prandini E, Puljak I, Reinthal R, Rhode W, Ribó M, Rico J, Garcia JR, Rügamer S, Saito T, Saito K, Satalecka K, Scalzotto V, Scapin V, Schultz C, Schweizer T, Shore SN, Sillanpää A, Sitarek J, Snidaric I, Sobczynska D, Spanier F, Stamatescu V, Stamerra A, Steinbring T, Storz J, Strzys M, Takalo L, Takami H, Tavecchio F, Temnikov P, Terzić T, Tescaro D, Teshima M, Thaele J, Tibolla O, Torres DF, Toyama T, Treves A, Uellenbeck M, Vogler P, Zanin R, Kadler M, Schulz R, Ros E, Bach U, Krauß F, Wilms J. Black hole lightning due to particle acceleration at subhorizon scales. Science 2014; 346:1080-4. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1256183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
47
|
|
48
|
Olson ER, Treves A, Wydeven AP, Ventura SJ. Landscape predictors of wolf attacks on bear-hunting dogs in Wisconsin, USA. WILDLIFE RESEARCH 2014. [DOI: 10.1071/wr14043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Context In Europe and the United States, wolf–human conflict has increased as wolf populations have recovered and recolonised human-dominated ecosystems. These conflicts may lead to negative attitudes towards wolves and often complicate wolf management. Wolf attacks on bear-hunting hounds (hereafter, hounds) are the second-most common type of depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin, USA, and, typically, the most costly in terms of compensation per individual animal. Understanding the geospatial patterns in which these depredations occur could promote alternative hunting practices or management strategies that could reduce the number of wolf–human conflicts. Aims We compared variables differentiating between wolf attacks on hounds and non-hounds (e.g., pets), we constructed a spatial, predictive model of wolf attacks on hounds, and we explored how the landscape of risk changed over time. Methods We characterised landscape features of hound depredations using logistic regression. We applied the spatial model to a geographic information system (GIS) to display spatial patterns and to predict areas of risk for wolf attack. Key results Our model correctly classified 84% of sites of past depredations, 1999–2008, and 78% of nearby random-unaffected sites. The model correctly predicted 82% of recent (2009–11) depredation sites not used in model construction, thereby validating its predictive power. Risk of wolf attack on hounds increased with percentage area of public-access land nearby, size of the nearest wolf pack, proximity of the nearest wolf pack, and decreased with percentage of human development. National and county forest lands had significantly (P < 0.001) more hound depredations than did other land-ownership types, whereas private lands had significantly fewer. Conclusions Risk of wolf attacks on hounds had distinctive temporal and spatial signatures, with peak risk occurring during the black bear hound training and hunting seasons and in areas closer to the centre of wolf pack territories, with larger wolf packs and more public access land and less developed land. Implications Our analysis can help bear hunters avoid high-risk areas, and help wildlife managers protect wildlife and recreational use of public lands, and reduce public costs of predator recovery. We present a risk-adjusted compensation equation. If wildlife managers choose, or are required, to provide compensation for hounds attacked by wolves, while hunting on public lands, we suggest that managers consider adjusting compensation payments on the basis of the relative landscape of risk.
Collapse
|
49
|
Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Enzler S, Treves A, Nelson MP. Removing Protections for Wolves and the Future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973). Conserv Lett 2013. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
|
50
|
Treves A, Naughton-Treves L, Shelley V. Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2013; 27:315-23. [PMID: 23293913 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2011] [Accepted: 09/10/2012] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
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. Análisis Longitudinal de las Actitudes Hacia Lobos.
Collapse
|