The growing complexity and global nature of wildlife poaching threaten the survival of many species worldwide and are outpacing conservation efforts. Here, we reviewed proximal and distal factors, both social and ecological, driving illegal killing or poaching of large carnivores at sites where it can potentially occur. Through this review, we developed a conceptual social–ecological system framework that ties together many of the factors influencing large carnivore poaching. Unlike most conservation action models, an important attribute of our framework is the integration of multiple factors related to both human motivations and animal vulnerability into feedbacks. We apply our framework to two case studies, tigers in Laos and wolverines in northern Sweden, to demonstrate its utility in disentangling some of the complex features of carnivore poaching that may have hindered effective responses to the current poaching crisis. Our framework offers a common platform to help guide future research on wildlife poaching feedbacks, which has hitherto been lacking, in order to effectively inform policy making and enforcement.

Rapid, global changes, such as extinction and climate change, put a premium on evidence-based, environmental policies and interventions, including predator control efforts. Lack of solid scientific evidence precludes strong inference about responses of predators, people, and prey of both, to various types of predator control. Here we formulate two opposing hypotheses with possible underlying mechanisms and propose experiments to test four pairs of opposed predictions about responses of predators, domestic animals, and people in a coupled, dynamic system. We outline the design of a platinum-standard experiment, namely randomized, controlled experiment with cross-over design and multiple steps to blind measurement, analysis, and peer review to avoid pervasive biases. The gold-standard has been proven feasible in field experiments with predators and livestock, so we call for replicating that across the world on different methods of predator control, in addition to striving for an even higher standard that can improve reproducibility and reliability of the science of predator control.

Anthropogenic mortality among populations of large terrestrial carnivores undermines the health of ecosystems globally, and generally increases when people respond lethally to real or perceived threats to property, including livestock. Reducing such threats through the use of non‐lethal methods could therefore protect both large predators and human interests. However, the scarcity of information on the effectiveness of methods to prevent livestock predation hinders the formulation of science‐based policy. We present the results of a randomized crossover experimental test of a method to prevent predation on livestock, which to our knowledge is the first such test in Latin America. By relying on a so‐called “gold‐standard” design, we evaluated the effectiveness of using flashing lights to deter predators. We found that light deterrents discouraged pumas (Puma concolor) but not Andean foxes (Lycalopex culpaeus) from preying on alpacas (Vicugna pacos) and llamas (Lama glama), and demonstrated that gold‐standard experiments are feasible in large natural ecosystems, contradicting assumptions that people will reject placebo controls and that such systems contain too many confounding variables. Functionally effective non‐lethal methods can protect wildlife, livestock, and people. Strong inference is needed for the development of sound policy concerning wildlife management, livestock husbandry, environmental conservation, and biodiversity.