Search

When humanity confronts the risk of extinction of species, many people invoke precautions, especially in the face of uncertainty. Although precautionary approaches are value judgments, the optimal design and effect of precautions or lack thereof are scientific questions. We investigated Wisconsin gray wolves Canis lupus facing a second wolf-hunt in November 2021 and use three legal thresholds as the societal value judgments about precautions: (1) the 1999 population goal, 350 wolves, (2) the threshold for statutory listing under the state threatened and endangered species act, 250 wolves; and (3) state extirpation <2 wolves. This allows us to explore the quantitative relationship between precaution and uncertainty. Working from estimates of the size wolf population in April 2021 and reproduction to November, we constructed a simple linear model with uninformative priors for the period April 2021-April 2022 including an uncertain wolf-hunt in November 2021. Our first result is that the state government under-counted wolf deaths in the year preceding both wolf-hunts. We recommend better scientific analysis be used when setting wolf-hunt quotas. We find official recommendations for a quota for the November 2021 wolf-hunt risk undesirable outcomes. Even a quota of zero has a 13% chance of crossing threshold 1. Therefore, a zero death toll would be precautionary. Proponents for high quotas bear the burden of proof that their estimates are accurate, precise, and reproducible. We discuss why our approach is transferable to non-wolves. We show how scientists have the tools and concepts for quantifying and explaining the probabilities of crossing thresholds set by laws or other social norms. We recommend that scientists grapple with data gaps by explaining what the uncertainty means for policy and the public including the consequences of being wrong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poaching is the main cause of mortality for many large carnivores, and mitigating it is imperative for the persistence of their populations. For Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus), periods of increased risk in overall mortality and poaching seem to overlap temporally with legal hunting seasons for other large mammals (hunting wolves was prohibited). We analyzed monitoring data from adult, collared wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979–2012, n = 495) using a competing-risk approach to test explicitly if seasons during which it was legal to train hunting hounds (hounding) or hunt other large mammals (hunting) affected wolves' hazard of cause-specific mortality and disappearance. We found increases in hazard for disappearances and documented ('reported') poaching during seasons with hunting, hounding or snow cover relative to a season without these factors. The 'reported poached' hazard increased > 650% during seasons with hunting and snow cover, which may be due to a seasonal surge in numbers of potential poachers or to some poachers augmenting their activities. Snow cover was a major environmental factor contributing to poaching, presumably through increased detection of wolves. Our study suggests poaching is by far the highest mortality hazard for wolves and reinforces the need for protections and policies targeting poaching of protected populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predators and their protection are controversial worldwide. Gray wolves, Canis lupus, lost U.S. federal protection (delisting) and the State of Wisconsin began lethal management first among all states and tribes that regained authority over wolves. Here we evaluated the initial success of reaching the state’s explicit objective, “...to allow for a sustainable harvest that neither increases nor decreases the state’s wolf population...”We used official state figures for hunter-killed wolves, population estimates from April 2017–2020, and the latest peer-reviewed model of individual wolf survival to estimate additional deaths resulting from federal delisting. More than half of the additional deaths were predicted to be cryptic poaching under the assumption that this period resembled past periods of liberalized wolf-killing in Wisconsin. We used a precautionary approach to construct three conservative scenarios to predict the current status of this wolf population and a minimum estimate of population decline since April 2020. From our scenarios that vary in growth rates and additional mortality estimates, we expect a maximum of 695–751 wolves to be alive in Wisconsin by 15 April 2021, a minimum 27–33% decline in the preceding 12 months. This contradicts the state expectation of no change in the population size. We draw a conclusion about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms under state control of wolves and discuss the particular governance conditions met in Wisconsin. We recommend greater rigor and independent review of the science used by agencies to plan wolf hunting quotas and methods. We recommend clearer division of duties between state wildlife agencies, legislatures, and courts. We recommend federal governments reconsider the practice of sudden deregulation of wolf management and instead recommend they consider protecting predators as non-game or transition more slowly to subnational authority, to avoid the need for emergency relisting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The costs of wildlife conservation distribute unequally across society. Compensation can potentially redress inequities and raise local tolerance for endangered wildlife that damage property. However, the rules for payments generate controversy, particularly as costs mount and species recover. In Wisconsin (USA), gray wolf damage payments grew notably over 28 years and eventually undermined budgets for conserving other endangered species. We measured attitudes to compensation among 1,364 state residents, including those who voluntarily contributed funds and those likely to receive compensation, and we interviewed elected officials about the politics of payment rules. Most respondents endorsed compensation for wolf damages to livestock-even when wolves are no longer endangered-but opposed payments for wolf damage to hunting dogs on public land. Most donors opposed killing wolves and over one-fourth unconditionally rejected a wolf hunt. We predict the latter donors would stop contributing funds for compensation if the state were to implement a proposed wolf hunt. Controversy over payment rules reveals clashing values regarding wildlife between those receiving and those paying for compensation. Moreover, the costs of compensation ratchet up as endangered species recover and claims of entitlement expand. Hence we recommend conservationists use sunset clauses and an adaptive management of compensation programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservationists recognize the need to work beyond protected areas if they are to sustain viable populations of wildlife. But ambitious plans to extend wildlife corridors beyond protected areas must consider the economic and political implications when wildlife forage on crops, attack livestock, or otherwise threaten human security. Traditionally, humans respond by killing “problem” wildlife and transforming wild habitats to prevent further losses. This traditional response, however, is now illegal or socially unacceptable in many areas, changing a simple competitive relationship between people and wildlife into a political conflict. Here we draw from experience in Bolivia, Uganda, and Wisconsin to outline a strategy for mitigating human–wildlife conflict based on participatory methods and co-management with twin objectives of wildlife conservation and safeguarding human security. Incorporating local stakeholders as partners in planning and implementation can help to win space for wildlife beyond protected area boundaries. We also show why systematic study of local people's perceptions of risk and participant planning of interventions are irreplaceable components of such projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As wolf (Canis lupus ) populations recover in Wisconsin (U.S.A.), their depredations on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs have increased. We used a mail-back survey to assess the tolerance of 535 rural citizens of wolves and their preferences regarding the management of “problem” wolves. Specifically, we tested whether people who had lost domestic animals to wolves or other predators were less tolerant of wolves than neighboring residents who had not and whether compensation payments improved tolerance of wolves. We assessed tolerance via proxy measures related to an individual's preferred wolf population size for Wisconsin and the likelihood she or he would shoot a wolf. We also measured individuals' approval of lethal control and other wolf-management tactics under five conflict scenarios. Multivariate analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of tolerance was social group. Bear (Ursus americanus ) hunters were concerned about losing valuable hounds to wolves and were more likely to approve of lethal control and reducing the wolf population than were livestock producers, who were more concerned than general residents. To a lesser degree, education level, experience of loss, and gender were also significant. Livestock producers and bear hunters who had been compensated for their losses to wolves were not more tolerant than their counterparts who alleged a loss but received no compensation. Yet all respondents approved of compensation payments as a management strategy. Our results indicate that deep-rooted social identity and occupation are more powerful predictors of tolerance of wolves than individual encounters with these large carnivores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study that documented complaints about wolf depredation in Wisconsin between 1976 to 2000. Analysis of the the temporal and geographic patterns of wolf depredation; Identification of the depredating wolves; Examination of compensation and control operations for wolf depredation.

Numerous studies report majorities of survey respondents hold positive attitudes toward wolves. However, a 2001–2009 panel study found declining tolerance of wolves among residents of Wisconsin’s wolf range. Poaching, believed to be increasing, has been an important source of mortality in Wisconsin’s wolf population since the 1980s. We conducted focus groups, with an accompanying anonymous questionnaire survey of participants, among farmers and hunters in Wisconsin’s wolf range to gain a more in-depth understanding of attitudes towards wolves and inclinations to poach wolves. Whereas our study was originally designed to examine the effects of an experimental lethal-control program on inclination to poach, oscillating wolf-management authority shifted our focus from a single intervention to a suite of changes in policy and management. Following federal delisting of the Western Great Lakes wolf population in January 2012, Wisconsin implemented lethal-depredation control and created the state’s first legalized wolf-harvest season in October 2012. We convened focus groups before and after these changes. Pre- and post-survey results showed majorities of respondents held negative attitudes toward wolves with no decrease in inclination to poach, suggesting lethal-control measures, in the short term, may be ineffective for increasing tolerance. Participants expressed favorable attitudes toward lethal-control measures, but believed there were limitations in the implementation of the lethal-control measures. Focus group discussions revealed elements of positivity toward wolves not revealed by questionnaires, as well as several thematic areas, such as fear, empowerment, and trust, that may inform the development of interventions designed to increase tolerance of wolves and other controversial species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American black bears ( Ursus americanus) triggered complaints from property owners across much of Wisconsin, USA, from 2008 to 2010. Wildlife managers provided technical assistance and live-trapped bears to mitigate nuisances. We examined the longevity of these management actions as measured by the risk (or hazard) that a conflict site would generate a subsequent complaint after live-trapping or technical assistance had been implemented. We observed that as one expanded outward in distance from the original complaint site, the number of days separating a management action and a subsequent complaint decreased. Additionally, the number of bears that were translocated from a conflict location was not associated with decreased hazard. The percentages of locations that did not have a subsequent complaint were nearly identical for both technical assistance and live-trapping interventions. Our technique is a practical one, which could be used to analyze existing agency records. Also, our results could improve the benefit-cost calculations of agencies contemplating new or modified nuisance-response protocols for this bear species and perhaps others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) policy is dynamic and involves multiple stakeholders. Attitudinal surveys have historically measured stakeholder attitudes, although Native American views have rarely been studied systematically. We sent a mail-back questionnaire to members of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Ojibwe) to assess attitudes toward wolves and Wisconsin wolf policy. We compared their responses to a sample of non-tribal residents of Wisconsin's wolf range. Tribal respondents held significantly more positive attitudes toward wolves, were more supportive of protective policy, and were less supportive of a public wolf harvest than non-tribal respondents. Multivariate analyses revealed several demographic factors associated with observed differences in attitudes; the most frequent and strongest predictor was whether or not a respondent was a tribal member. Ojibwe perspectives deserve attention in future wolf policy and may influence a possible wolf harvest, especially given Ojibwe treaty rights in the Great Lakes region. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Regulated hunting may help conserve wildlife. Advocates argue hunters will champion conservation and generate revenue for management, regulation will promote sustained, stable wildlife populations, and conflicts with game species will diminish. Applying this notion to predators such as the wolf presents difficulties because of widespread human intolerance for the species. We assessed potential hunter stewardship of wolves by measuring attitudes of hunters and nonhunters in three surveys spanning 2001–2007 among 2,320 residents of four states in wolf range. Two U.S. states implemented hunting and several more are contemplating it, all as part of long-term wolf conservation. At the time of our surveys, majorities supported hypothetical wolf hunting depending on the justifications used. Likely wolf hunters showed little inclination to conserve wolves. However some predict such attitudes might change if they were allowed to hunt wolves. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Regulated hunts of carnivores are believed to prevent property damage and other conflicts with people. Few studies have tested if public hunting reduces subsequent complaints about carnivores. We analyzed 10 years of data on nuisance complaints from a hunted American black bear (Ursus americanus) population in Wisconsin, USA. At the statewide scale, complaints about agricultural damage, other property damage, or human safety concerns did not correlate with each other or with number of bears taken by hunters in the preceding 1 2 years. At the smaller scale of bear management zones, there were positive correlations between the number of bears taken by hunters in one year and all categories of nuisance complaints in subsequent years. Once corrected for the estimated bear population size, only property damage retained a significant positive correlation with hunter take in prior years. Age and sex profiles of bears taken by hunters differed significantly from those of bears live-trapped around sites of nuisance complaints. Hunters took significantly younger bears and a lower proportion of males. The most common method (shooting over bait) produced age-sex profiles most different from bears live-trapped after nuisance complaints. Although hunters removed 356 bears implicated in nuisance complaints, they took these bears in proportion to their availability. We conclude that the Wisconsin bear-hunting season did not show clear evidence of reducing nuisance complaints during 1995 2004, probably because hunting was not effectively designed for that goal. We call for additional research on hunter and bear behavior, including experimental tests of hunting individuals with different levels of involvement in property damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wildlife protectionists, livestock producers, and black bear hunters influenced wolf policy in Wisconsin, USA, over the past 29 years. Wolf policy aligned closely with protectionist values until 2003, when litigations over lethal control and wolf reclassification created a rift. Since 2003, livestock producers and bear hunters have had more influence over wolf policy. Throughout, state managers steered steadily toward regaining management authority from the federal government and finding common ground between the wildlife values held by different stakeholders. Human dimensions research helped find this common ground and shape wolf policy, particularly when it integrated ecology, social science, and management applications. From spatial, predictive models of wolf attacks on domestic animals and attitudinal surveys on compensation and hunting, managers combined results into novel proposals to balance divergent interests. Wolf policy exemplifies the challenges facing wildlife managers as new wildlife values confront older ones and stakeholders demand a say in policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although poaching (illegal killing) is an important cause of death for large carnivores globally, the effect of lethal management policies on poaching is unknown for many populations. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed: liberalizing killing may decrease poaching incidence ('tolerance hunting') or increase it ('facilitated poaching'). For gray wolves in Wisconsin, USA, we evaluated how five causes of death and disappearances of monitored, adult wolves were influenced by policy changes. We found slight decreases in reported wolf poaching hazard and incidence during six liberalized killing periods, but that was outweighed by larger increases in hazard and incidence of disappearance. Although the observed increase in the hazard of disappearance cannot be definitively shown to have been caused by an increase in cryptic poaching, we discuss two additional independent lines of evidence making this the most likely explanation for changing incidence among n = 513 wolves' deaths or disappearances during 12 replicated changes in policy. Support for the facilitated poaching hypothesis suggests the increase (11–34%) in disappearances reflects that poachers killed more wolves and concealed more evidence when the government relaxed protections for endangered wolves. We propose a refinement of the hypothesis of 'facilitated poaching' that narrows the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms underlying wolf-killing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: With growing pressure for conservation to pay its way, the merits of compensation for wildlife damage must be understood in diverse socio-ecological settings. Here we compare compensation programs in Wisconsin, USA and Solapur, India, where wolves (Canis lupus) survive in landscapes dominated by agriculture and pasture. At both sites, rural citizens were especially negative toward wolves, even though other wild species caused more damage. Wisconsin and Solapur differ in payment rules and funding sources, which reflect distinct conservation and social goals. In Wisconsin, as wolves recolonized the state, some periodically preyed on livestock and hunting dogs. Ranchers and some hunters were more likely to oppose wolves than were other citizens. The Wisconsin compensation program aimed to restore an iconic species by using voluntary contributions from wolf advocates to pay affected individuals more for wolf losses than for other species. By contrast, wolves had been continuously present in Solapur, and damages were distributed amongst the general populace. Government-supported compensation payments were on offer to anyone suffering losses, yet claims registered were low. There were no significant differences in attitudes of any particular segment of the population, but those losing high value livestock applied for compensation. Residents at both sites did not report (Wisconsin) or expect (Solapur) a change in attitude towards wolves as a result of compensation, yet they support the existence of such programs. To assess the merits of any compensation program, one must disentangle the multiple goals of compensation, such as reducing wolf killing or more fairly sharing the costs of conserving large carnivores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding individual attitudes and how these predict overt opposition to predator conservation or direct, covert action against predators will help to recover and maintain them. Studies of attitudes toward wild animals rely primarily on samples of individuals at a single time point. We examined longitudinal change in individuals' attitudes toward gray wolves (Canis lupus). In the contiguous United States, amidst persistent controversy and opposition, abundances of gray wolves are at their highest in 60 years. We used mailed surveys to sample 1892 residents of Wisconsin in 2001 or 2004 and then resampled 656 of these individuals who resided in wolf range in 2009. Our study spanned a period of policy shifts and increasing wolf abundance. Over time, the 656 respondents increased agreement with statements reflecting fear of wolves, the belief that wolves compete with hunters for deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and inclination to poach a wolf. Endorsement of lethal control of wolves by the state and public hunting of wolves also increased. Neither the time span over which respondents reported exposure to wolves locally nor self-reported losses of domestic animals to wolves correlated with changes in attitude. We predict future increases in legal and illegal killing of wolves that may reduce their abundance in Wisconsin unless interventions are implemented to improve attitudes and behavior toward wolves. To assess whether interventions change attitudes, longitudinal studies like ours are needed. Análisis Longitudinal de las Actitudes Hacia Lobos., (© 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.)