Wolf-Hunting Dog Interactions in a Biodiversity Hot Spot Area in Northern Greece: Preliminary Assessment and Implications for Conservation in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park and Adjacent Areas

Simple Summary

Wolf attacks on hunting dogs are on the rise in many European countries, triggering retaliatory killing and poisoning of wolves. Poisoning may have detrimental effects on endangered vulture species. In critical areas for vulture conservation such as the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, the conflict should be urgently evaluated. We assessed levels, trends, and defined related factors, by interviewing hunters and undertaking a diet analysis of wolf scats. Attacks affected mostly hare hunters, certain dog breeds and age classes, averaged one dog per hunter and decade, and happened under certain circumstances. Affected areas had specific landscape characteristics, fewer livestock, more hunting, and presence of wolf reproduction. Trends of wolf attacks on hunting dogs were positive and those on livestock negative. Wolves fed mainly on roe deer in summer and wild boar in winter, while the presence of dogs in scats was 5.1% in winter. Reduced dependence of wolves on livestock, as well as changes in wolf diet and hunting practices, may have predisposed wolves to kill more dogs recently. Wild boar also injured or killed hunting dogs, very often perplexing assessment of the conflict. The study concludes on practical measures for verifying and reducing hunting dog losses from wolf attacks.

Abstract

Hunting dog depredation by wolves triggers retaliatory killing, with negative impacts on wildlife conservation. In the wider area of the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, reports on such incidents have increased lately. To investigate this conflict, we interviewed 56 affected hunters, conducted wolf trophic analysis, analyzed trends for 2010–2020, applied MAXENT models for risk-map creation, and GLMs to explore factors related to depredation levels. Losses averaged approximately one dog per decade and hunter showing a positive trend, while livestock depredations showed a negative trend. Wolves preyed mainly on wild prey, with dogs consisting of 5.1% of the winter diet. Low altitude areas, with low to medium livestock availability favoring wolf prey and game species, were the riskiest. Dogs were more vulnerable during hare hunting and attacks more frequent during wolf post-weaning season or in wolf territories with reproduction. Hunter experience and group hunting reduced losses. Wolves avoided larger breeds or older dogs. Making noise or closely keeping dogs reduced attack severity. Protective dog vests, risk maps, and enhancing wolf natural prey availability are further measures to be considered, along with a proper verification system to confirm and effectively separate wolf attacks from wild boar attacks, which were also common.

Transparency About Values and Assertions of Fact in Natural Resource Management

Worldwide, unsustainable use of nature threatens many ecosystems and the services they provide for a broad diversity of life, including humans. Yet, governments commonly claim that the best available science supports their policies governing extraction of natural resources. We confront this apparent paradox by assessing the complexity of the intersections among value judgments, fact claims, and scientifically verified facts. Science can only describe how nature works and predict the likely outcomes of our actions, whereas values influence which actions or objectives society ought to pursue. In the context of natural resource management, particularly of fisheries and wildlife, governments typically set population targets or use quotas. Although these are fundamentally value judgments about how much of a resource a group of people can extract, quotas are often justified as numerical guidance derived from abstracted, mathematical, or theoretical models of extraction. We confront such justifications by examining failures in transparency about value judgments, which may accompany unsupported assertions articulated as factual claims. We illustrate this with two examples. Our first case concerns protection and human use of habitats harboring the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), revealing how biologists and policy scholars have argued for divergent roles of scientists within policy debates, and how debates between scientists engaged in policy-relevant research reveal undisclosed value judgments about communication of science beyond its role as a source of description (observation, measurement, analysis, and inference). Our second case concerns protection and use of endangered gray wolves (Canis lupus) and shows how undisclosed value judgments distorted the science behind a government policy. Finally, we draw from the literature of multiple disciplines and wildlife systems to recommend several improvements to the standards of transparency in applied research in natural resource management. These recommendations will help to prevent value-based distortions of science that can result in unsustainable uses and eventual extinctions of populations. We describe methods for communicating about values that avoid commingling factual claims and discuss approaches to communicating science that do not perpetuate the misconception that science alone can dictate policy without consideration of values. Our remedies can improve transparency in both expert and public debate about preserving and using natural resources, and thereby help prevent non-human population declines worldwide.

Adding Nuance to Our Understanding of Dog-Wildlife Interactions and the Need for Management

The interactions of dogs and wildlife are receiving increasing attention across the globe. Evidence suggests that dogs can negatively affect wildlife in a variety of ways, including through the risk of predation, by hybridizing with other Canis species, by acting as a reservoir or vector of pathogens, and by competing with wildlife for resources. A multitude of observations and case studies for each of these interactions has led to calls to prioritize increased management of dogs, for instance, through population reduction, vaccination, movement restrictions, and enhanced care of the dogs themselves. Here, I argue that while the risks that dogs present to wildlife are real, they vary in their importance across the globe. Furthermore, often the approaches used to address these risks are championed without a full understanding of the likelihood of success given the necessary spatial scale of management, the availability of alternative management approaches, and the role dogs play in societies. For instance, culling, vaccination, and animal husbandry approaches in reducing the impacts of dogs on wildlife sometimes fail to recognize that local human populations actively recruit replacement dogs, that vaccination often fails to reach levels necessary for herd immunity, and that enhanced dog husbandry may have indirect impacts on wildlife by requiring environmentally impactful activities. I suggest there is a need for attention not only to identify the impacts of dogs but also to determine where and when such interactions with wildlife are problematic and the likelihood of success for any proposed management approach. The impacts of dogs should be mediated in a context-specific manner that accounts for factors such as the local density of dogs, the susceptibility of local wildlife populations to the risks that dog populations may represent, and the local societal norms that underpin how dogs might be managed.

Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices

Simple Summary

Consideration of animal welfare in food choices has become an influential contemporary theme. Traditional animal welfare views about food have been largely restricted to direct and intentional harms to livestock in intensive animal agriculture settings. However, many harms to animals arising from diverse food production practices in the world are exerted indirectly and unintentionally and often affect wildlife. Here we apply a qualitative analysis of food production by considering the breadth of harms caused by different food production systems to wild as well as domestic animals. Production systems are identified that produce relatively few and relatively many harms. The ethical implications of these findings are discussed for consumers concerned with the broad animal welfare impacts of their food choices.

Abstract

Ethical food choices have become an important societal theme in post-industrial countries. Many consumers are particularly interested in the animal welfare implications of the various foods they may choose to consume. However, concepts in animal welfare are rapidly evolving towards consideration of all animals (including wildlife) in contemporary approaches such as “One Welfare”. This approach requires recognition that negative impacts (harms) may be intentional and obvious (e.g., slaughter of livestock) but also include the under-appreciated indirect or unintentional harms that often impact wildlife (e.g., land clearing). This is especially true in the Anthropocene, where impacts on non-human life are almost ubiquitous across all human activities. We applied the “harms” model of animal welfare assessment to several common food production systems and provide a framework for assessing the breadth (not intensity) of harms imposed. We considered all harms caused to wild as well as domestic animals, both direct effects and indirect effects. We described 21 forms of harm and considered how they applied to 16 forms of food production. Our analysis suggests that all food production systems harm animals to some degree and that the majority of these harms affect wildlife, not livestock. We conclude that the food production systems likely to impose the greatest overall breadth of harms to animals are intensive animal agriculture industries (e.g., dairy) that rely on a secondary food production system (e.g., cropping), while harvesting of locally available wild plants, mushrooms or seaweed is likely to impose the least harms. We present this conceptual analysis as a resource for those who want to begin considering the complex animal welfare trade-offs involved in their food choices.

Does public information about wolf (Canis lupus) movements decrease wolf attacks on hunting dogs (C. familiaris)?

The threat that wolves (Canis lupus) pose to hunting dogs is one reason why Finnish hunters have negative attitudes towards wolves and one of the potential motivations for the illegal killing of wolves. During 2010–2017, wolves killed an average of 38 dogs (range 24–50) per year in Finland. Most of the attacks (91%) were directed at hunting dogs during the hunting season. To decrease the risk of attacks, the last seven positions (one position per hour) of GPS-collared wolves were accessible to the public with a 5 × 5 km resolution during the hunting seasons (from August 20th to February 28th) of 2013/2014 (from September 2nd onwards), 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. The link was visited more than 1 million times in 3 of the 4 seasons. Fatal attacks on dogs occurred on 17% of the days during the hunting seasons of our study (n = 760 days). Both the attacks and visits peaked in September–November, which is the primary hunting season in Finland. According to the general linear model, the number of daily visits to the website was higher on days when fatal attacks occurred than on other days. Additionally, season and the number of days passed from the first day of the season were significantly related to the daily visits. Visits were temporally auto-correlated, and the parameter values in the model where the dependent variable was the number of visits on the next day were only slightly different from those in the first model. A two-way interaction between season and attack existed, and the least squares means were significantly different in 2017/2018. The change in daily visits between consecutive days was related only to the number of days from the beginning of the season. We examined whether this kind of service decreased dog attacks by wolves. Wolf attacks were recorded in 32% of the wolf territories, where at least one wolf had been collared (n = 22). However, within the territories without any GPS-collared wolves, the proportion of territories with wolf attack(s) was significantly higher than those elsewhere (50%, n = 48). Although public information decreased the risk of attacks, it did not completely protect dogs from wolf attacks and may in some cases increase the risk of illegally killing wolves. The most remarkable benefit of this kind of service to the conservation of the wolf population might be the message to the public that management is not overlooking hunters’ concerns about wolf attacks on their dogs.

A landscape of overlapping risks for wolf-human conflict in Wisconsin, USA

Managing risk requires an adequate understanding of risk-factors that influence the likelihood of a particular event occurring in time and space. Risk maps can be valuable tools for natural resource managers, allowing them to better understand spatial characteristics of risk. Risk maps can also support risk-avoidance efforts by identifying which areas are relatively riskier than others. However, risks, such as human-carnivore conflict, can be diverse, multi-faceted, and overlapping in space. Yet, efforts to describe risk typically focus on only one aspect of risk. We examined wolf complaints investigated in Wisconsin, USA for the period of 1999-2011. We described the spatial patterns of four types of wolf-human conflict: livestock depredation, depredation on hunting hounds, depredation on non-hound dogs, and human health and safety concerns (HHSC). Using predictive landscape models and discriminant functions analysis, we visualized the landscape of risk as a continuous surface of overlapping risks. Each type of conflict had its own unique landscape signature; however, the probability of any type of conflict increased closer to the center of wolf pack territories and with increased forest cover. Hunting hound depredations tended to occur in areas considered to be highly suitable wolf habitat, while livestock depredations occurred more regularly in marginal wolf habitat. HHSC and non-hound dog depredations were less predictable spatially but tended to occur in areas with low housing density adjacent to large wildland areas. Similar to other research evaluating the risk of human-carnivore conflict, our data suggests that human-carnivore conflict is most likely to occur where humans or human property and large carnivores co-occur. However, identifying areas of co-occurrence is only marginally valuable from a conservation standpoint and could be described using spatially-explicit human and carnivore data without complex analytical approaches. These results challenge our traditional understanding of risk and the standard approach used in describing risk. We suggest that a more comprehensive understanding of the risk of human-carnivore conflict can be achieved by examining the spatial and non-spatial factors influencing risk within areas of co-occurrence and by describing the landscape of risk as a continuous surface of multiple overlapping risks.

Who is the killer? Barking up the wrong tree

In recent years, several cases of predation on hunting dogs have been reported in Italy. These cases caused uproar among owners and the wolf was singled out as the culprit. The remains of a dog allegedly killed by wolves were submitted for forensic analysis. Wolf predation was ruled out based on gross findings and wild boar aggression was suspected instead. Genetic analysis of salivary swab samples confirmed that wild boars fed on the dog. As poaching is one of the main threats to wolf conservation, it is essential to identify correctly the predator in cases of attacks on domestic animals.

Predators and the public trust

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.