A global assessment of large terrestrial carnivore kill rates

Through killing and instilling fear in their prey, large terrestrial carnivores shape the structure and function of ecosystems globally. Most large carnivore species have experienced severe range and population declines due to human activities, and many are now threatened with extinction. Consequently, the impacts of these predators on food webs have been diminished or lost completely from many ecosystems. Kill rates provide a fundamental metric for understanding large carnivore ecology and assessing and comparing predation within and across ecological communities. Our systematic review of large terrestrial mammalian carnivore kill rates reveals significant positive geographic (North America, Europe, and Africa) and taxonomic (grey wolf Canis lupus, puma Puma concolor, lion Panthera leo, and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx) bias, with most studies apparently motivated by human-carnivore conflict over access to ungulate prey and wildlife management objectives. Our current understanding of the behaviour and functional roles of many large carnivore species and populations thus remains limited. By synthesising and comparing kill rates, we show that solitary carnivores (e.g. brown bears Ursus arctos and most felids) exhibit higher per capita kill rates than social carnivores. However, ungulate predation by bears is typically limited to predation of neonates during a short period. Lower per capita kill rates by social carnivores suggests group living significantly reduces energetic demands, or, alternatively, that group-living carnivores defend and consume a greater proportion of large prey carcasses, or may acquire more food through other means (e.g. scavenging, kleptoparasitism) than solitary hunters. Kill and consumption rates for Canidae - measured as kilograms of prey per kilogram of carnivore per day - are positively correlated with body mass, consistent with increasing energy costs associated with a cursorial hunting strategy. By contrast, ambush predators such as felids show an opposite trend, and thus the potential energetic advantage of an ambush hunting strategy for carnivores as body mass increases. Additionally, ungulate kill rates remain relatively constant across solitary felid body sizes, indicative of energetic constraints and optimal foraging. Kill rate estimates also reveal potential insights into trophic structuring within carnivore guilds, with subordinate carnivores often killing more than their larger counterparts, which may be indicative of having to cope with food losses to scavengers and dominant competitors. Subordinate carnivores may thus serve an important role in provisioning food to other trophic levels within their respective ecosystems. Importantly, kill rates also clarify misconceptions around the predatory behaviour of carnivores (e.g. spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and wolverines Gulo gulo are often considered scavengers rather than the capable hunters that they are) and thus the potential impacts of various carnivore species on their ecological communities. Despite the importance of kill rates in understanding predator-prey interactions, their utility is not widely recognised, and insufficient research limits our ability to fully appreciate and predict the consequences of modified predation regimes, justify current management actions affecting carnivores, or inform effective conservation measures. Together with other important research on predator-prey interactions, robust kill rate studies that address the research deficiencies we highlight will provide a deeper understanding of the foraging behaviours and potential ecosystem impacts of many of the world's carnivores, thus aiding effective conservation and management actions.

Quantifying anthropogenic wolf mortality in relation to hunting regulations and landscape attributes across North America

Understanding the types and magnitude of human‐caused mortality is essential for maintaining viable large carnivore populations. We used a database of cause‐specific mortality to examine how hunting regulations and landscape configurations influenced human‐caused mortality of North American gray wolves (Canis lupus). Our dataset included 21 studies that monitored the fates of 3564 wolves and reported 1442 mortalities. Human‐caused mortality accounted for 61% of mortality overall, with 23% due to illegal harvest, 16% due to legal harvest, and 12% the result of management removal. The overall proportion of anthropogenic wolf mortality was lowest in areas with an open hunting season compared to areas with a closed hunting season or mixed hunting regulations, suggesting that harvest mortality was neither fully additive nor compensatory. Proportion of mortality from management removal was reduced in areas with an open hunting season, suggesting that legal harvest may reduce human‐wolf conflicts or alternatively that areas with legal harvest have less potential for management removals (e.g., less livestock depredation). Proportion of natural habitat was negatively correlated with the proportion of anthropogenic and illegal harvest mortality. Additionally, the proportion of mortality due to illegal harvest increased with greater natural habitat fragmentation. The observed association between large patches of natural habitat and reductions in several sources of anthropogenic wolf mortality reiterate the importance of habitat preservation to maintain wolf populations. Furthermore, effective management of wolf populations via implementation of harvest may reduce conflict with humans. Effective wolf conservation will depend on holistic strategies that integrate ecological and socioeconomic factors to facilitate their long‐term coexistence with humans.

Coexistence Praxis: The Role of Resource Managers in Wolf-Livestock Interactions on Federal Lands

In resource management, new terms are frequently introduced, reflecting ongoing evolution in the theory and practice of ecology and governance. Yet understandings of what new concepts mean, for whom, and what they imply for management on the ground can vary widely. Coexistence—a prominent concept within the literature and practices around human-wildlife conflict and predator management—is one such term: widely invoked and yet poorly defined. While for some coexistence is the latest paradigm in improving human-wildlife relations, the concept remains debated and indeed even hotly contested by others—particularly on the multiple-use public lands of the American West, where gray wolf conservation, livestock production, and the claims of diverse stakeholders share space.

The multiple meanings of coexistence present serious challenges for conservation practice, as what the concept implies or requires can be contested by those most central to its implementation. In this study we examine wolf-livestock management—a classic case of human-wildlife conflict—by focusing on the experiences and perspectives of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managers. We reviewed coexistence's multivalence in the literature, complementing semi-structured interviews conducted with USFS employees on case study forests from across the western states. Through this, we highlight the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the concept, and the unique yet under-explored perspective that resource managers bring to these debates.

This work draws on insights from political ecology to emphasize the situatedness of manager practice—taking place within a broader set of relations and contextual pressures—while extending political ecologists' traditional focus on the resource user to a concern with the resource manager as a key actor in environmental conflicts. Through our engagement with the experiences and perceptions of USFS managers, who must balance conservation aims with long-established land uses like livestock grazing, we hope to clarify the various dimensions of coexistence. Our hope is that this work thus increases the possibility for empathy and collaboration among managers and stakeholders engaged in this complex socio-ecological challenge.

Missing shots: has the possibility of shooting wolves been lacking for 20 years in France

Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ~580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over one-third of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and ever-evolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.