Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Abstract

Human-carnivore coexistence is an oft-stated goal but assumptions about what constitutes coexistence can lead to goal misalignment and undermine policy and program efficacy. Questions about how to define coexistence remain and specific goals and methods for reaching coexistence require refining. Co-adaptation, where humans adapt to carnivores and vice versa, is a novel socioecological framework for operationalizing coexistence but has yet to be comprehensively examined. We explored co-adaptation and two additional coexistence criteria through analysis of three case studies involving large carnivores in the American West, each addressing differing approaches on how and what it means to coexist with carnivores: Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) in Arizona and New Mexico, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and coyotes (Canis latrans) throughout the American West. We used a multiple case study design that analyzed within and across cases to understand coexistence broadly. For each case, we asked (1) are landscapes shared in space and/or time, (2) is co-adaptation occurring and (3) do stakeholders consider risks tolerable? To identify whether coexistence criteria are met, we investigated peer-reviewed published articles and news media and conducted key informant interviews. We found clear evidence to support land-sharing between humans and coyotes and limited spatial overlap between humans and grizzly bears and Mexican gray wolves. Co-adaptation was variable for wolves, possible with bears and clearly evident with coyotes. Tolerable risk levels are likely achievable for bears and coyotes based on the available literature assessing risk perceptions and tolerance. But disagreement regarding risk management is a driver of conflict over wolves and persistent barrier to achieving coexistence among diverse stakeholders. Patterns in coexistence criteria did not emerge based on taxonomy or geography but may be influenced by body size and behavioral plasticity. The common key to coexistence with each considered carnivore may be in more equitable distribution of costs and benefits among highly diverse stakeholders. Better understanding of these three coexistence criteria and innovative tools to achieve them will improve coexistence capacity with controversial carnivores on public and private lands in diverse American West contexts and beyond.

The ecology of human–carnivore coexistence

“…This emerging pattern of cooccurrence has led to the suggestion that coexistence—persisting wildlife presence in human-dominated landscapes that facilitate life requisites, such as reproduction, via coadaptation between wildlife and people (as in the sense of refs. 14 and 15 )—no longer requires wilderness areas to maintain viable populations of large carnivores ( 16 ). However, views in support of a diminished role of wilderness in the conservation of large carnivores are not universal ( 17 , 18 ).…”

“…These data revealed that, despite high rates of bear mortality in human-dominated areas, coexistence is possible via a combination of individual behavioral shifts and connectivity to wilderness areas that rescue bears from extirpation. These mechanisms, paired with shifting social attitudes toward the tolerance of—and coadaptation with—carnivores ( 15 , 31 , 32 ), have facilitated brown bear recolonization, persistence, and increasing densities in many human-dominated landscapes across western North America ( 33 – 37 ).…”

“…1 B ) and would rapidly be extirpated without continual immigration, highlighting the importance of maintaining, and in some cases restoring, intact wilderness. On the human side, social tolerance for carnivores, and creative solutions for coexistence, are increasing ( 15 ). Reducing human influences at night can restore carnivore movement ( 46 ), and highway crossing structures can increase carnivore survival and connectivity without interfering with human transportation ( 47 ).…”

From worship to subjugation: Understanding stories about bears to inform conservation efforts

“…In particular, bears are described in metaphor relative to their human-like traits and behaviors, and can be honored through ceremony or totems, or feared for the risks they can pose (Brunner 2007, Lescureux andLinnell 2010). We determined that to better understand the meanings ascribed to bears, or meanings inherent in the stories people tell about them, a qualitative exploratory approach to reviewing bear stories would be most appropriate (Fraser et al 2006, Gergen 2015, Haddaway et al 2015, Frank et al 2017, Fraser-Celin et al 2018, Lute and Carter 2020. This approach was appropriate given that it provides researchers the flexibility to describe the data rather than constrain data to defined categories (Lute and Carter 2020).…”

Human adaptation strategies are key to cobenefits in human–wildlife systems

“…A key to coexistence is mutual adaptations between humans and wildlife, such that both are able to change their behavior, learn from their experiences, and pursue their own interests with respect to each other (Carter & Linnell, 2016;Lute & Carter, 2020). Unlike wildlife, human adaptation strategies are subject to influence by regulation and social norms, and thus capable of being changed through concerted action (Bautista et al, 2019).…”