Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

Terrestrial mesopredators did not increase after top-predator removal in a large-scale experimental test of mesopredator release theory

Removal or loss of top-predators has been predicted to cause cascading negative effects for ecosystems, including mesopredator release. However, reliable evidence for these processes in terrestrial systems has been mixed and equivocal due, in large part, to the systemic and continued use of low-inference study designs to investigate this issue. Even previous large-scale manipulative experiments of strong inferential value have been limited by experimental design features (i.e. failure to prevent migration between treatments) that constrain possible inferences about the presence or absence of mesopredator release effects. Here, we build on these previous strong-inference experiments and report the outcomes of additional large-scale manipulative experiments to eradicate Australian dingoes from two fenced areas where dingo migration was restricted and where theory would predict an increase in extant European red foxes, feral cats and goannas. We demonstrate the removal and suppression of dingoes to undetectable levels over 4–5 years with no corresponding increases in mesopredator relative abundances, which remained low and stable throughout the experiment at both sites. We further demonstrate widespread absence of negative relationships between predators, indicating that the mechanism underpinning predicted mesopredator releases was not present. Our results are consistent with all previous large-scale manipulative experiments and long-term mensurative studies which collectively demonstrate that (1) dingoes do not suppress red foxes, feral cats or goannas at the population level, (2) repeated, temporary suppression of dingoes in open systems does not create mesopredator release effects, and (3) removal and sustained suppression of dingoes to undetectable levels in closed systems does not create mesopredator release effects either. Our experiments add to similar reports from North America, Asia, Europe and southern Africa which indicate that not only is there a widespread absence of reliable evidence for these processes, but there is also a large and continually growing body of experimental evidence of absence for these processes in many terrestrial systems. We conclude that although sympatric predators may interact negatively with each other on smaller spatiotemporal scales, that these negative interactions do not always scale-up to the population level, nor are they always strong enough to create mesopredator suppression or release effects.

Impacts of wolves on rural economies from recreational small game hunting

Centralized management of large carnivore populations in rural and remote landscapes used by local people often leads to conflicts between the objectives of wildlife conservation and rural development. We tested the hypothesis that the presence of wolves indirectly reduces landowner revenues from traditional small game hunting, and that landowner revenues are more variable closer to wolf territories. The assumed mechanism is that hunters fear that their economically and culturally valuable hunting dogs may be killed by wolves, which results in reduced hunting, and thus reduced revenues for landowners where and when wolves occur. To determine the effect of wolf presence on revenues from sport hunting, we obtained data from 1990 to 2009 on income from small game management areas, in Hedmark and Oppland Counties in Norway, as well as  locations of wolf territories. Small game management areas experienced increased sport hunting revenue with increasing distance to the closest wolf territory. Also, inter-annual variation in revenue decreased with increasing distance from wolf territories. Thus, wolf presence may reduce landowners’ revenues from small game hunting, and cause higher economic variability in rural communities. It is important to note that while the economic impacts of wolves may be compensated where governments have the will and the economic resources, the impacts on the lifestyles of rural people (e.g. hunter’s fear of losing prized dogs to wolves) will remain controversial.