Effectiveness of community-based livestock protection strategies: a case study of human–lion conflict mitigation

Human procurement of meat from lion (Panthera leo) kills: Costs of disturbance and implications for carnivore conservation

In Africa, humans and large carnivores compete over access to resources, including prey. Disturbance by humans to kills made by carnivores, often for purposes of obtaining all or portions of the carcass, constitutes a form of human-wildlife conflict. However the occurrence of this practice, known as human kleptoparasitism, and its impact on carnivores has received little scientific attention. We obtained expert opinions from African lion researchers and stakeholders via a standardized questionnaire to characterize the geographic extent and frequency of human kleptoparasitism as it occurs in modern times. Our survey found modern human kleptoparasitism on kills made by lions, and possibly other large carnivores in Africa, to be geographically more widespread than previously reported. Meat lost to humans requires carnivores to hunt and kill additional prey thereby causing stress, increasing their energetic costs and risks of natural injury, and exposing them to risk of direct injury or death from human usurpers. Because of their conspicuous behaviors and tendency towards killing large-bodied prey, lions are particularly susceptible to humans detecting their kills. While human kleptoparasitism was geographically widespread, socio-economic factors influenced the frequency of occurrence. Prey type (wild game or domestic livestock) influenced human attitudes towards meat theft; ownership allows for legal recovery of livestock carcasses, while possessing wild game meat is mostly illegal and may incur penalties. Meat theft was associated with other illegal activities (i.e., illegal mining) and most prevalent among people of low income, including underpaid game scouts. Despite quantifiable costs to carnivores of human disturbance to their kills, the majority of experts surveyed reported a lack of knowledge on this practice. We propose that human disturbance at kills, especially loss of prey through human kleptoparasitism, constitutes an important anthropogenic threat that may seriously impact energy budgets of individual lions and other scavengers when meat and carcasses are removed from the ecosystem, and that the costs incurred by carnivores warrants further investigation.

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research, education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour.

The ethics of intervening in animal behaviour for conservation

Conservation behaviour is a growing field that applies insights from the study of animal behaviour to address challenges in wildlife conservation and management. Conservation behaviour interventions often aim to manage specific behaviours of a species to solve conservation challenges. The field is often viewed as offering approaches that are less intrusive or harmful to animals than, for example, managing the impact of a problematic species by reducing its population size (frequently through lethal control). However, intervening in animal behaviour, even for conservation purposes, may still raise important ethical considerations. We discuss these issues and develop a framework and a decision support tool, to aid managers and researchers in evaluating the ethical considerations of conservation behaviour interventions against other options.