When is it acceptable to kill a strictly protected carnivore? Exploring the legal constraints on wildlife management within Europe’s Bern Convention

Harvest models of small populations of a large carnivore using Bayesian forecasting

Harvesting large carnivores can be a management tool for meeting politically set goals for their desired abundance. However, harvesting carnivores creates its own set of conflicts in both society and among conservation professionals, where one consequence is a need to demonstrate that management is sustainable, evidence-based, and guided by science. Furthermore, because large carnivores often also have high degrees of legal protection, harvest quotas have to be carefully justified and constantly adjusted to avoid damaging their conservation status. We developed a Bayesian state-space model to support adaptive management of Eurasian lynx harvesting in Scandinavia. The model uses data from the annual monitoring of lynx abundance and results from long-term field research on lynx biology, which has provided detailed estimates of key demographic parameters. We used the model to predict the probability that the forecasted population size will be below or above the management objectives when subjected to different harvest quotas. The model presented here informs decision makers about the policy risks of alternative harvest levels. Earlier versions of the model have been available for wildlife managers in both Sweden and Norway to guide lynx harvest quotas and the model predictions showed good agreement with observations. We combined monitoring data with data on vital rates and were able to estimate unobserved additional mortality rates, which are most probably due to poaching. In both countries, the past quota setting strategy suggests that there has been a de facto threshold strategy with increasing proportion, which means that there is no harvest below a certain population size, but above this threshold there is an increasing proportion of the population harvested as the population size increases. The annual assessment of the monitoring results, the use of forecasting models, and a threshold harvest approach to quota setting will all reduce the risk of lynx population sizes moving outside the desired goals. The approach we illustrate could be adapted to other populations of mammals worldwide.

Deer, wolves, and people: costs, benefits and challenges of living together

Human-driven species annihilations loom as a major crisis. However the recovery of deer and wolf populations in many parts of the northern hemisphere has resulted in conflicts and controversies rather than in relief. Both species interact in complex ways with their environment, each other, and humans. We review these interactions in the context of the ecological and human costs and benefits associated with these species. We integrate scattered information to widen our perspective on the nature and perception of these costs and benefits and how they link to each other and ongoing controversies regarding how we manage deer and wolf populations. After revisiting the ecological roles deer and wolves play in contemporary ecosystems, we explore how they interact, directly and indirectly, with human groups including farmers, foresters, shepherds, and hunters. Interactions with deer and wolves generate various axes of tension, posing both ecological and sociological challenges. Resolving these tensions and conflicts requires that we address key questions using integrative approaches: what are the ecological consequences of deer and wolf recovery? How do they influence each other? What are the social and socio-ecological consequences of large deer populations and wolf presence? Finally, what key obstacles must be overcome to allow deer, wolves and people to coexist? Reviewing contemporary ecological and sociological results suggests insights and ways to improve our understanding and resolve long-standing challenges to coexistence. We should begin by agreeing to enhance aggregate benefits while minimizing the collective costs we incur by interacting with deer and wolves. We should also view these species, and ourselves, as parts of integrated ecosystems subject to long-term dynamics. If co-existence is our goal, we need deer and wolves to persevere in ways that are compatible with human interests. Our human interests, however, should be inclusive and fairly value all the costs and benefits deer and wolves entail including their intrinsic value. Shifts in human attitudes and cultural learning that are already occurring will reshape our ecological interactions with deer and wolves.

Animal Welfare in Predator Control: Lessons from Land and Sea. How the Management of Terrestrial and Marine Mammals Impacts Wild Animal Welfare in Human-Wildlife Conflict Scenarios in Europe

The control of predators, on land and in the sea, is a complex topic. Both marine and terrestrial mammal predators come into conflict with humans in Europe in many ways and yet their situations are rarely compared. Areas of conflict include the predation of livestock and farmed fish, and the perceived competition for wild prey (for example wolves competing with hunters for deer and seals competing with fishermen for salmon). A lethal method (shooting) and non-lethal methods of conflict reduction (including enclosures, guarding, and aversion) used for terrestrial large carnivores (e.g., bear, wolf, wolverine, lynx) and marine mammals (seals) are discussed. Control measures tend to be species- and habitat-specific, although shooting is a widely used method. Potential impacts on predator welfare are described and welfare assessments which have been developed for other wildlife control scenarios, e.g., control of introduced species, are considered for their potential use in assessing predator control. Such assessments should be applied before control methods are chosen so that decisions prioritizing animal welfare can be made. Further work needs to be carried out to achieve appropriate and widely-accepted animal welfare assessment approaches and these should be included in predator management planning. Future research should include further sharing of approaches and information between terrestrial and marine specialists to help ensure that animal welfare is prioritized.