Preventative methods to reduce human-carnivore conflict: driven by progress or politics?

Over the past few decades, human-carnivore conflict has received increasing attention as most large carnivore populations continue to decline. Large carnivore attacks on livestock and subsequent carnivore removal (a primary... [ view full abstract ]

Over the past few decades, human-carnivore conflict has received increasing attention as most large carnivore populations continue to decline. Large carnivore attacks on livestock and subsequent carnivore removal (a primary factor in world-wide carnivore population decline) has led to conflict between farming communities and conservation practitioners worldwide. Methods to prevent and mitigate human-carnivore conflicts have been implemented with varying levels of success. In the United States, the efficacy of specific preventative methods and their continued use is largely driven by public acceptance and politics within management agencies, not whether the method is truly successful at alleviating conflict (i.e. conserving carnivores and human interests). Whether driven by politics, fear, or other motives, this model does not foster effective solutions to human-wildlife conflicts. Sustainable, long-term solutions will be difficult to develop unless all stakeholders (e.g., management agencies, livestock producers, and conservation organizations) interact with transparency and accountability. I will provide specific examples of human-carnivore conflict mitigation from the United States and Africa that failed because transparency and accountability were lacking, and others where clear communication accomplished conservation objectives. As conservation practitioners, we can learn from these experiences and develop new protocols to improve collaboration among stakeholders and promote carnivore conservation worldwide.