Wolf‐livestock conflict and the effects of wolf management

Abstract

Wolf (Canis lupus) depredations of livestock are a ubiquitous source of conflict in every country where wolves and livestock overlap. We studied the spatial and temporal variation of wolf depredations of livestock in Montana during 2005-2015, including evaluations of targeted control efforts and public harvest as potential means to reduce depredations. During this time we collected spatial data for all confirmed wolflivestock depredations, tallied the annual number of depredation events within hunting districts, and collected data for variables potentially predictive of depredation events. We decomposed variation in depredation data into 2 distinct components: the binary presence or absence of depredation events in each district-year, and the count of depredation events in district-years with !1 event. We found that presenceabsence of depredations increased with wolf presence and wolf density, increased with livestock density, were highest at intermediate proportionate areas of agricultural land, and were a recurrent phenomenon such that districts with depredations the previous year were more likely to continue having them. Targeted removal, but not public harvest, significantly reduced the recurrent presence of depredations. The number of conflicts in district-years with !1 depredation event was positively correlated with wolf density, cattle density, intermediate proportionate areas of forested land, and the number of events during the previous year. Public harvest reduced the counts of depredation events in areas where conflict reoccurred, though with a modest predicted effect size of 0.22 fewer depredations/district-year, or 5.7 fewer depredation events statewide/year (8% of the annual average). Minimizing livestock losses is a top priority for wolf management. These results shed light on the broad-scale patterns behind chronic problems and the effectiveness of wolf management practices in addressing them. Ó

Blood trail of expansion? Long‐term patterns of livestock depredation by wolves in Poland

“…Successful management of the conflict between expanding wolf populations and livestock husbandry requires insights into patterns of depredation on livestock and related factors (Behdarvand et al, 2014; Breck & Meier, 2004). Several factors have been proposed to explain the probability and numbers of wolf attacks, including the density of wolf populations, pack sizes, availability of natural prey, landscape structure, livestock availability, husbandry practices, and protective measures (Bradley et al, 2015; DeCesare et al, 2018; Janeiro‐Otero et al, 2020; Kaartinen et al, 2009; Kaczensky, 1999; Meriggi & Lovari, 1996; Odden et al, 1999). Given the variety of factors influencing livestock depredation by wolves, it is difficult to predict spatial and temporal patterns in wolf attacks, especially in areas where wolves are recolonizing after a long absence (Dalerum et al, 2020).…”

Coexistence Praxis: The Role of Resource Managers in Wolf-Livestock Interactions on Federal Lands

“…Such efforts lean heavily on deterrents aimed at preventing depredation, frequently positioned as "nonlethal alternatives" to the lethal control of "problem individuals." While these tools and techniques are often described as "straightforward" (Western Wildlife Outreach, 2014), questions remain around their effectiveness and associated costs (on the efficacy and ethics of lethal vs. nonlethal wildlife management, see Miller et al, 2016;Eklund et al, 2017;DeCesare et al, 2018;Lennox et al, 2018;Moreira-Arce et al, 2018;van Eeden et al, 2018;Treves et al, 2019;Gamborg et al, 2020;Boronyak et al, 2021).…”

Missing shots: has the possibility of shooting wolves been lacking for 20 years in France

“…Nonetheless, in the USA, attack recurrence decreases for farms equipped with traps as compared with non-equipped farms, but with no effect at the state level (Harper et al 2008). DeCesare et al (2018) showed that increasing levels of targeted lethal removal of wolves following depredation reduced the probability of their recurrence at the level of a hunting district. Although Wielgus and Peebles (2014) found a counter-intuitive result with lethal control leading to an increase in livestock depredation, their analysis has been contested by both Poudyal et al (2016) and Kompaniyets and Evans (2017) who found statistically negative effects of lethal removal on subsequent depredation.…”