The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.

/pdf/recovery-of-large-carnivores-in-europe-s-modern-human-49oq04a76u.pdf

Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes

Across Europe, wild boar numbers increased in the 1960s-1970s but stabilised in the 1980s; recent evidence suggests that the numbers and impact of wild boar has grown steadily since the 1980s. As hunting is the main cause of mortality for this species, we reviewed wild boar hunting bags and hunter population trends in 18 European countries from 1982 to 2012. Hunting statistics and numbers of hunters were used as indicators of animal numbers and hunting pressure. The results confirmed that wild boar increased consistently throughout Europe, while the number of hunters remained relatively stable or declined in most countries. We conclude that recreational hunting is insufficient to limit wild boar population growth and that the relative impact of hunting on wild boar mortality had decreased. Other factors, such as mild winters, reforestation, intensification of crop production, supplementary feeding and compensatory population responses of wild boar to hunting pressure might also explain population growth. As populations continue to grow, more human-wild boar conflicts are expected unless this trend is reversed. New interdisciplinary approaches are urgently required to mitigate human-wild boar conflicts, which are otherwise destined to grow further.

Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe.

Successful coexistence between large carnivores and humans is conditional upon effective mitigation of the impact of these species on humans, such as through livestock depredation. It is therefore essential for conservation practitioners, carnivore managing authorities, or livestock owners to know the effectiveness of interventions intended to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. We reviewed the scientific literature (1990-2016), searching for evidence of the effectiveness of interventions. We found experimental and quasi-experimental studies were rare within the field, and only 21 studies applied a case-control study design (3.7% of reviewed publications). We used a relative risk ratio to evaluate the studied interventions: changing livestock type, keeping livestock in enclosures, guarding or livestock guarding dogs, predator removal, using shock collars on carnivores, sterilizing carnivores, and using visual or auditory deterrents to frighten carnivores. Although there was a general lack of scientific evidence of the effectiveness of any of these interventions, some interventions reduced the risk of depredation whereas other interventions did not result in reduced depredation. We urge managers and stakeholders to move towards an evidence-based large carnivore management practice and researchers to conduct studies of intervention effectiveness with a randomized case-control design combined with systematic reviewing to evaluate the evidence.

/pdf/limited-evidence-on-the-effectiveness-of-interventions-to-43nxo21gdm.pdf

Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores

Rewilding European Landscapes

Human-wildlife conflict is a major conservation challenge, and compensation for wildlife damage is a widely used economic tool to mitigate this conflict. The effectiveness of this management tool is widely debated. The relative importance of factors associated with compensation success is unclear, and little is known about global geographic or taxonomic differences in the application of compensation programs. We reviewed research on wildlife-damage compensation to determine geographic and taxonomic gaps, analyze patterns of positive and negative comments related to compensation, and assess the relative magnitude of global compensation payments. We analyzed 288 publications referencing wildlife compensation and identified 138 unique compensation programs. These publications reported US$222 million (adjusted for inflation) spent on compensation in 50 countries since 1980. Europeans published the most articles, and compensation funding was highest in Europe, where depredation by wolves and bears was the most frequently compensated damage. Authors of the publications we reviewed made twice as many negative comments as positive comments about compensation. Three-quarters of the negative comments related to program administration. Conversely, three-quarters of the positive comments related to program outcomes. The 3 most common suggestions to improve compensation programs included requiring claimants to employ damage-prevention practices, such as improving livestock husbandry or fencing of crops to receive compensation (n = 25, 15%); modifying ex post compensation schemes to some form of outcome-based performance payment (n = 21, 12%); and altering programs to make compensation payments more quickly (n = 14, 8%). We suggest that further understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of compensation as a conflict-mitigation tool will require more systematic evaluation of the factors driving these opinions and that differentiating process and outcomes and understanding linkages between them will result in more fruitful analyses and ultimately more effective conflict mitigation.

Global patterns and trends in human-wildlife conflict compensation.

Large carnivores (bears Ursus arctos, wolves Canis lupus, lynx Lynx lynx and wolverines Gulo gulo) are among the most challenging group of species to maintain as large and continuous populations or to reintegrate back into the European landscape. Political, socioeconomic and society changes challenge past management approaches in some of the large populations. At the same time local improvements in habitat quality, the return of their prey species, public support and favourable legislation allow for the recovery of some small populations. Several of Europe’s large carnivore populations are large and robust, others are expanding, some small populations remain critically endangered and a few are declining. [\n] Large carnivores need very large areas and their conservation needs to be planned on very wide spatial scales that will often span many intra‐ and inter‐ national borders. Within these large scales conservation and management actions need to be coordinated. To facilitate coordination, a common understanding of the present day conservation status of large carnivores at national and population level is an important basis. [\n] The aim of this summary report is to provide an expert based update of the conservation status of all populations identified by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), available in the document “Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores” (Linnell et al. 2008) and/or in the various Species Online Information Systems (http://www.kora.ch/sp‐ois/ ; also see Appendix 1). [\n] However, methods used to monitor large carnivores vary and a direct comparison over time or among populations will never be possible at a continental scale. It is more realistic to have an insight into the general order of magnitude of the population, its trend and permanent range as the “currencies” for comparisons and assessments (see point 2). This summary also does not aim to replace the habitat directive reporting, but rather complement it. Discrepancies will likely occur due to different time periods covered and different agreements reached on common reporting criteria on a national level which has to deal with many more species. Furthermore, for several countries the most recent data or distribution map were not always available, yet. [\n] Changes in monitoring methods likely result in changing population estimates, even in stable populations. Improved and more costly methods may suddenly discover that previous estimates were too high, or may detect more individuals than previously assumed. Examples of both occur. Being aware of the change in methodology the expert assessment may still be “stable” for the population even if numbers listed in tables have changed. On the other hand, large scale “official” (government) estimates may be based on questionable or non‐transparent extrapolations that run contrary to data from reference areas within the country or similar regions from other countries. If the discrepancy is apparent, expert assessment needs to question official numbers. [\n] This summary does not aim at reviewing monitoring techniques. Examples of parameters and principles for monitoring large carnivores and some “good practice” examples have been previously compiled by the LCIE (http://www.lcie.org/Docs/LCIE%20IUCN/LCIE_PSS_m onitoring.pdf). Furthermore, references at the end of many country reports do provide ample examples of well documented and state of the art monitoring of large carnivores in Europe under a wide variety of different contexts.

/pdf/status-management-and-distribution-of-large-carnivores-bear-2deyhkm6gm.pdf

M. von Arx

Papers

Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe