Keep the wolf from the door: How to conserve wolves in Europe's human-dominated landscapes?

Kuijper, Dries P. J.; Churski, Marcin; Trouwborst, Arie; Heurich, Marco; Smit, Christian; Kerley, Graham I.H.; Cromsigt, Joris P. G. M.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.004

Cited by 61 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this trend has recently been reversed in some areas due to intensive conservation and management efforts. Large carnivores and facultative scavengers are recovering or have been reintroduced in many systems around the world, including wolves (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe (Kuijper et al, 2019), orca (Orcinus orca) in the Canadian Arctic (Lefort et al, 2020), and black bears (Ursus americanus) in the Great Basin Desert, USA .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recolonizing carnivores: Is cougar predation behaviorally mediated by bears?

Engebretsen

Beckmann

Lackey

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recolonizing carnivores: Is cougar predation behaviorally mediated by bears?

Engebretsen

Beckmann

Lackey

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As well as keeping carnivores wild and fearful of humans, it is also necessary for people to maintain the appropriate level of respect for wild predators. This may be particularly necessary in areas where large terrestrial carnivores have returned after a long absence [81]. If the necessary separation of humans and carnivores is achieved and there is sufficient wild prey, conflict can be minimized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deterrents, repellents, and aversive conditioning (including the use of chemicals, sounds, and light) have all been proposed as methods to help instill fear in wolves to prevent them from coming into close contact with human settlements and livestock [81,82].…”

Section: Aversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods to deter predators from attacking livestock are more effective when wild prey is also promoted and the restoration of habitats and ungulate populations are recommended by some authors [66,81]. In Belarus, wolves took more domestic animals, mainly cattle, during years when wild ungulate populations were at their lowest from poaching and uncontrolled exploitation [102].…”

Section: Promotion Of Wild Prey and Supplementary Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Nunny¹

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…There, the restoration of extant species into their original geographic distributions (our Holocene baseline) is a more attainable goal and could be a first step towards reversing long-term defaunation in the Global North. It does not come without challenges, as highlighted by public resistance to the comeback of large carnivores (Knight 2016, Behr et al 2017, Kuijper et al 2019 or even beavers (Coz and Young 2020) in Europe. But extant megafauna are already making a comeback, including in Europe (Deinet et al 2013, Chapron et al 2014, highlighting the potential for continental-scale conservation of large mammals in human-dominated landscapes (Linnell et al 2020).…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using recent baselines as benchmarks for megafauna restoration places an unfair burden on the Global South

Monsarrat

Svenning

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential for megafauna restoration is unevenly distributed across the world, along with the socio-political capacity of countries to support these restoration initiatives. We show that choosing a recent baseline to identify species' indigenous range puts a higher burden for megafauna restoration on countries in the Global South, which also have less capacity to support these restoration initiatives. We introduce the Megafauna Index, which considers large mammal's potential species richness and range area at country-level, to explore how the responsibility for megafauna restoration distributes across the world according to four scenarios using various temporal benchmarks to define species' indigenous range - current, historical (1500AD), mid-Holocene and Pleistocene. We test how the distribution of restoration burden across the world correlates to indicators of conservation funding, human development, and governance. Using a recent or historical baseline as a benchmark for restoration puts a higher pressure on African and south-east Asian countries while lifting the responsibility from the Global North, where extinctions happened a long time ago. When using a mid-Holocene or Pleistocene baseline, new opportunities arise for megafauna restoration in Europe and North America respectively, where countries have a higher financial and societal capacity to support megafauna restoration. These results contribute to the debate around benchmarks in rewilding initiatives and the ethical implications of using recent baselines to guide restoration efforts. We suggest that countries from the Global North should reflect on their responsibility in supporting global restoration efforts, by increasing their support for capacity building in the South and taking responsibility for restoring lost biodiversity at home.

show abstract

Keep the wolf from the door: How to conserve wolves in Europe's human-dominated landscapes?

Abstract: Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Cited by 61 publications

References 104 publications

Recolonizing carnivores: Is cougar predation behaviorally mediated by bears?

Recolonizing carnivores: Is cougar predation behaviorally mediated by bears?

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

Using recent baselines as benchmarks for megafauna restoration places an unfair burden on the Global South

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About