Attacks on hunting dogs: the case of wolf–dog interactions in Croatia

Bassi, Elena; Pervan, Ivan; Ugarković, Damir; Kavčić, Krešimir; Maksan, Marina Tomić; Krofel, Miha; Šprem, Nikica

doi:10.1007/s10344-020-01451-5

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To deal with data deficiency, we interviewed affected hunters, collecting information on dog depredation for a wide period and geographical area. Questionnaire surveys have been extensively used to collect data on large carnivore attacks on livestock [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ] or hunting dogs [ 3 , 18 , 50 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used non-probability convenience sampling, implementing the snowball technique, which is a respondent-driven sampling technique that allows researchers to make asymptotically unbiased estimates for socially hidden populations [ 51 ]. We asked each hunter interviewed to name others also experiencing hunting dog losses [ 18 ]. We arranged face-to-face interviews (February–July 2020) by the same person (Y.I.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wolf predation on dogs may be linked to the recovery of previously extinct wolf populations [ 11 ], or shortage of wild prey that forces wolves to switch their diet [ 3 ]. Wolves may kill dogs during game hunting [ 14 ]; in back yards [ 7 ]; when defending their territories [ 15 ]; and may, in all cases, extensively consume them afterwards [ 10 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Dog biomass in wolf diet varies considerably and up to 20%, although in most cases, it is below 5% [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Iliopoulos

Antoniadi

Kret³

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Iliopoulos

Antoniadi

Kret³

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other factors reported as important in previous research include the effects of surrounding habitat (e.g. distance to forest; Treves et al, 2011), meteorological conditions (Towns et al, 2009), breed of domestic animals (Bassi et al, 2021), herd size (Dar et al, 2009), status of local carnivore populations (e.g. stability of wolf packs; (Imbert et al, 2016;Santiago-Avila et al, 2018), historic presence of large carnivores in the area (Linnell, 2013), carnivores' space use (Melzheimer et al, 2020) and their habituation to human presence (Majić & Krofel, 2015).…”

Section: Despite the Considerable Funds Provided Through The Life Program To Eu Membermentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of the European LIFE program to mitigate damages caused by large carnivores in Europe

Oliveira

Treves

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments around the world invest considerable resources to reduce damages caused by large carnivores on human property. To use these investments more efficiently and effectively, we need to understand which interventions successfully prevent such damages and which do not. In the European Union, the LIFE program represents by far the largest financial instrument to help EU Member States with the implementation of conservation activities, including mitigation of damages caused by large carnivores. However, we currently lack information about the effectiveness of this funding program in reducing carnivore damages. We reviewed 135 LIFE projects dealing with large carnivores between 1992 and 2019 to provide an overview of the use of damage prevention methods and evaluate their functional and perceived effectiveness. Methods evaluated ranged from non-lethal and lethal interventions, to information dissemination and compensation schemes. The largest number of the projects was focused on grey wolf (Canis lupus) and brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the Mediterranean countries and in Romania. Electric fences were reported as the most successful method for reducing damages by large carnivores, and most of the non-lethal methods used showed at least moderate effectiveness. However, standards of measuring and reporting effectiveness were in general relatively low, which limits our ability to measure actual impact. Therefore we urge project managers and evaluators to improve these standards, as well as the dissemination of the project results. We provide a list of recommendations for improving measuring and reporting success of implemented interventions for the benefit of future projects aimed to reduce damages caused by wildlife.Article impact statementElectric fences were reported as the most effective method to prevent large-carnivore damages and are recommended for future use.

show abstract

“…Tuscany) [22] . It is thus plausible that new conflicts between wolves and hunters emerged, similarly to other European countries where ungulate hunting with dogs is widespread, as well as hunting dogs killed by wolves [23] [24] . Also, wolves in these newly colonized areas are more likely to suffer from poisoned baits released against stray dogs, or from accidental poisoning with pesticides and anticoagulants [25] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Men and wolves: are anthropogenic causes the main driver of wolf mortality in human-dominated landscapes in Italy?

Musto¹,

Cerri²,

Galaverni³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 40 years the gray wolf (Canis lupus) re-colonized its historical range in Italy increasing human-predator interactions. However, temporal and spatial trends in wolf mortality, including direct and indirect persecution, were never summarized. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the situation of Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna regions, believed to host a significant proportion of the Italian wolf population, by: (i) identifying the prevalent causes of wolf mortality, (ii) summarizing their temporal and spatial patterns and (iii) applying spatially-explicit Generalized Linear Models to predict wolf persecution. Between October 2005 and February 2021, 212 wolf carcasses were collected and subjected to necropsy, being involved in collisions with vehicles (n = 104), poisoned (n = 45), wounded with gunshot (n = 24) or blunt objects (n = 4) and being hanged (n = 2). The proportion of illegally killed wolves did not increase through time. Most persecution events occurred between October and February. None of our candidate models outperformed a null model and covariates such as the density of sheep farms, number of predations on livestock, or human density were never associated to the probability of having illegally killed wolves, at the municipal scale. Our findings show that conventional correlates of wolf persecution, combined with a supposedly high proportion of non-retrieved carcasses, fail to predict illegal wolf killings in areas where the species have become ubiquitous. The widespread spatial distribution of illegal killings indicates that persecution probably arises from multiple kinds of conflicts with humans, beyond those with husbandry. Wolf conservation in Italy should thus address cryptic wolf killings with multi-disciplinary approaches, such as shared national protocols, socio-ecological studies, the support of experts’ experience and effective sampling schemes for the detection of carcasses.

show abstract

Attacks on hunting dogs: the case of wolf–dog interactions in Croatia

Cited by 26 publications

References 30 publications

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

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

The contribution of the European LIFE program to mitigate damages caused by large carnivores in Europe

Men and wolves: are anthropogenic causes the main driver of wolf mortality in human-dominated landscapes in Italy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About