Evaluating how management policies affect red wolf mortality and disappearance.

Poaching is the major cause of death for large carnivores in several regions, contributing to their global endangerment. The traditional hypothesis used in wildlife management (killing for tolerance) suggests reducing protections for a species will decrease poaching. However, recent studies suggest reducing protections will instead increase poaching (facilitated illegal killing) and its concealment (facilitated cryptic poaching). Here, we build survival and competing risk models for mortality and disappearances of adult collared red wolves (Canis rufus) released in North Carolina, USA from 1987 to 2020 (n = 526). We evaluated how changes in federal and state policies protecting red wolves influenced the hazard and incidence of mortality and disappearance. We observed substantial increases in the hazard and incidence of red wolf reported poaching, and smaller increases in disappearances, during periods of reduced federal and state protections (including liberalizing hunting of coyotes, C. latrans); white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and American black bear (Ursus americanus) hunting seasons; and management phases. Observed increases in hazard (85-256%) and incidence of reported poaching (56-243%) support the 'facilitated illegal killing' hypothesis. We suggest improving protective policies intended to conserve endangered species generally and large carnivores in particular, to mitigate environmental crimes and generally improve the protection of wild animals.

Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting.

Poaching is the main cause of mortality for many large carnivores, and mitigating it is imperative for the persistence of their populations. For Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus), periods of increased risk in overall mortality and poaching seem to overlap temporally with legal hunting seasons for other large mammals (hunting wolves was prohibited). We analyzed monitoring data from adult, collared wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979-2012, n = 495) using a competing-risk approach to test explicitly if seasons during which it was legal to train hunting hounds (hounding) or hunt other large mammals (hunting) affected wolves' hazard of cause-specific mortality and disappearance. We found increases in hazard for disappearances and documented ('reported') poaching during seasons with hunting, hounding or snow cover relative to a season without these factors. The 'reported poached' hazard increased > 650% during seasons with hunting and snow cover, which may be due to a seasonal surge in numbers of potential poachers or to some poachers augmenting their activities. Snow cover was a major environmental factor contributing to poaching, presumably through increased detection of wolves. Our study suggests poaching is by far the highest mortality hazard for wolves and reinforces the need for protections and policies targeting poaching of protected populations.

Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management.

Predators and their protection are controversial worldwide. Gray wolves, Canis lupus, lost U.S. federal protection (delisting) and the State of Wisconsin began lethal management first among all states and tribes that regained authority over wolves. Here we evaluated the initial success of reaching the state's explicit objective, "…to allow for a sustainable harvest that neither increases nor decreases the state's wolf population…" We used official state figures for hunter-killed wolves, population estimates from April 2017-2020, and the latest peer-reviewed model of individual wolf survival to estimate additional deaths resulting from federal delisting. More than half of the additional deaths were predicted to be cryptic poaching under the assumption that this period resembled past periods of liberalized wolf-killing in Wisconsin. We used a precautionary approach to construct three conservative scenarios to predict the current status of this wolf population and a minimum estimate of population decline since April 2020. From our scenarios that vary in growth rates and additional mortality estimates, we expect a maximum of 695-751 wolves to be alive in Wisconsin by 15 April 2021, a minimum 27-33% decline in the preceding 12 months. This contradicts the state expectation of no change in the population size. We draw a conclusion about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms under state control of wolves and discuss the particular governance conditions met in Wisconsin. We recommend greater rigor and independent review of the science used by agencies to plan wolf hunting quotas and methods. We recommend clearer division of duties between state wildlife agencies, legislatures, and courts. We recommend federal governments reconsider the practice of sudden deregulation of wolf management and instead recommend they consider protecting predators as non-game or transition more slowly to subnational authority, to avoid the need for emergency relisting.

Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves.

Despite illegal killing (poaching) being the major cause of death among large carnivores globally, little is known about the effect of implementing lethal management policies on poaching. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed in the literature: implementing lethal management may decrease poaching incidence (killing for tolerance) or increase it (facilitated illegal killing). Here, we report a test of the two opposed hypotheses that poaching (reported and unreported) of Mexican grey wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) in Arizona and New Mexico, USA, responded to changes in policy that reduced protections to allow more wolf-killing. We employ advanced biostatistical survival and competing risk methods to data on individual resightings, mortality and disappearances of collared Mexican wolves, supplemented with Bayes factors to assess the strength of evidence. We find inconclusive evidence for any decreases in reported poaching. We also find strong evidence that Mexican wolves were 121% more likely to disappear during periods of reduced protections than during periods of stricter protections, with only slight changes in legal removals by the agency. Therefore, we find strong support for the 'facilitated illegal killing' hypothesis and none for the 'killing for tolerance' hypothesis. We provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of US policy on environmental crimes, endangered species and protections for wild animals. Our results have implications beyond the USA or wolves because the results suggest transformations of decades-old management interventions against human-caused mortality among wild animals subject to high rates of poaching.

Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA.

Although poaching (illegal killing) is an important cause of death for large carnivores globally, the effect of lethal management policies on poaching is unknown for many populations. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed: liberalizing killing may decrease poaching incidence ('tolerance hunting') or increase it ('facilitated poaching'). For gray wolves in Wisconsin, USA, we evaluated how five causes of death and disappearances of monitored, adult wolves were influenced by policy changes. We found slight decreases in reported wolf poaching hazard and incidence during six liberalized killing periods, but that was outweighed by larger increases in hazard and incidence of disappearance. Although the observed increase in the hazard of disappearance cannot be definitively shown to have been caused by an increase in cryptic poaching, we discuss two additional independent lines of evidence making this the most likely explanation for changing incidence among n = 513 wolves' deaths or disappearances during 12 replicated changes in policy. Support for the facilitated poaching hypothesis suggests the increase (11-34%) in disappearances reflects that poachers killed more wolves and concealed more evidence when the government relaxed protections for endangered wolves. We propose a refinement of the hypothesis of 'facilitated poaching' that narrows the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms underlying wolf-killing.

Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence.

Recent extinctions often resulted from humans retaliating against wildlife that threatened people's interests or were perceived to threaten current or future interests. Today's subfield of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) grew out of an original anthropocentric concern with such real or perceived threats and then, starting in the mid-1990s, with protecting valued species from people. Recent work in ethics and law has shifted priorities toward coexistence between people and wild animals. To spur scientific progress and more effective practice, we examined 4 widespread assumptions about HWCC that need to be tested rigorously: scientists are neutral and objective about HWCC; current participatory, consensus-based decisions provide just and fair means to overcome challenges in HWCC; wildlife threats to human interests are getting worse; and wildlife damage to human interests is additive to other sources of damage. The first 2 assumptions are clearly testable, but if they are entangled can become a wicked problem and may need debunking as myths if they cannot be disentangled. Some assumptions have seldom or never been tested and those that have been tested appear dubious, yet the use of the assumptions continues in the practice and scholarship of HWCC. We call for tests of assumptions and debunking of myths in the scholarship of HWCC. Adherence to the principles of scientific integrity and application of standards of evidence can help advance our call. We also call for practitioners and interest groups to improve the constitutive process prior to decision making about wildlife. We predict these steps will hasten scientific progress toward evidence-based interventions and improve the fairness, ethics, and legality of coexistence strategies.

Mitos y Suposiciones sobre el Conflicto y la Coexistencia entre el Humano y la Fauna Resumen Casi todas las extinciones recientes han resultado de las represalias que los humanos han realizado en contra de la fauna que amenaza o que ha sido percibida como una amenaza para intereses humanos actuales o futuros. Hoy en día, la disciplina de conflicto y coexistencia humano - fauna (HWCC, en inglés), surgió de la original preocupación antropocéntrica por las amenazas reales o percibidas y después, a partir de mediados de la década de 1990, por la preocupación de proteger a las especies valoradas por el los humanos. Trabajos recientes de ética y leyes han modificado sus prioridades hacia la coexistencia entre las personas y la fauna silvestre. Para estimular el progreso científico y una práctica más efectiva, examinamos cuatro suposiciones generalizadas sobre el HWCC que necesitan ser evaluadas rigurosamente: los científicos son neutrales y objetivos con el HWCC; las decisiones participativas actuales basadas en consensos proporcionan medios justos y razonables para sobreponerse a los retos del HWCC; las amenazas de la fauna hacia los intereses humanos cada vez son peores; y el daño causado por la fauna a los intereses humanos es aditivo a otras fuentes de daño. Las primeras dos suposiciones son claramente evaluables, pero si se entrelazan, pueden convertirse en un serio problema y necesitarían ser desacreditadas como mitos si no se pueden desenlazar. Algunas suposiciones nunca o rara vez han sido evaluadas y aquellas que sí lo han sido parecen ser dudosas. A pesar de esto, el uso de las suposiciones continua en la práctica y en la academia del HWCC. La adhesión a los principios de integridad científica y la aplicación de estándares de evidencia pueden ayudar a promover nuestra petición. También hacemos un llamado a los practicantes y a los grupos de interés para que mejoren el proceso constitutivo previo a la toma de decisiones sobre la fauna. Pronosticamos que estos pasos a seguir apresurarán el progreso científico hacia intervenciones basadas en evidencia y mejorarán la imparcialidad, ética y legalidad de las estrategias de coexistencia.

Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation.

Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space.

Reconocimiento de la Calidad de Persona en los Animales dentro de la Conservación Compasiva Resumen La conservación compasiva está basada en la posición ética que parte de que las acciones tomadas para proteger a la biodiversidad deberían estar dirigidas por la compasión por todos los seres sintientes. Los críticos de esta postura argumentan que hay tres razones nucleares por las que el daño a los animales es aceptable dentro de los programas de conservación: el principal motivo de la conservación es la protección de la biodiversidad; la conservación ya es compasiva con los animales; y la conservación debería priorizar la compasión hacia los humanos. Usamos un análisis de argumentos para aclarar los valores y la lógica subyacentes al debate en torno a la conservación compasiva. Encontramos que el rechazo a la conservación compasiva es una expresión de la excepcionalidad humana, la visión de que los humanos están en un nivel categóricamente separado y de mayor moral que todas las demás especies. Por el contrario, los conservacionistas compasivos creen que la conservación debería expandir su comunidad moral al reconocer a todos los seres sintientes como personas. La calidad de persona, en un sentido ético, implica que el individuo merece respeto y no debería ser tratado solamente como un medio para otros fines. Si hablamos desde fundamentos científicos y éticos, existen muy buenas razones para extender la calidad de persona a todos los animales sintientes, particularmente en la conservación. La exclusión moral o la subordinación de los miembros de otras especies justifica la continua manipulación y explotación de los seres vivos, la justa razón por la que necesitamos de la conservación desde el principio. La aceptación de la compasión nos puede ayudar a desmantelar la excepcionalidad humana, a reconocer la calidad de persona no humana y a navegar un espacio moral más expansivo.

A moral panic over cats.

Some conservationists believe that free-ranging cats pose an enormous risk to biodiversity and public health and therefore should be eliminated from the landscape by any means necessary. They further claim that those who question the science or ethics behind their arguments are science deniers (merchants of doubt) seeking to mislead the public. As much as we share a commitment to conservation of biodiversity and wild nature, we believe these ideas are wrong and fuel an unwarranted moral panic over cats. Those who question the ecological or epidemiological status of cats are not science deniers, and it is a false analogy to compare them with corporate and right-wing special interests that perpetrate disinformation campaigns over issues, such as smoking and climate change. There are good conservation and public-health reasons and evidence to be skeptical that free-ranging cats constitute a disaster for biodiversity and human health in all circumstances. Further, there are significant and largely unaddressed ethical and policy issues (e.g., the ethics and efficacy of lethal management) relative to how people ought to value and coexist with cats and native wildlife. Society is better served by a collaborative approach to produce better scientific and ethical knowledge about free-ranging cats.

Pánico Moral por los Gatos Resumen Algunos conservacionistas creen que los gatos sueltos representan un riesgo enorme para la biodiversidad y la salud pública, por lo que deberían ser eliminados del paisaje a como dé lugar. Los conservacionistas además alegan que quienes cuestionan la ciencia o la ética detrás de estos argumentos son negadores de la ciencia (mercaderes de la duda) que buscan desinformar al público. Por mucho que compartamos un compromiso con la conservación de la biodiversidad y la fauna silvestre, creemos que estás ideas están equivocadas y alimentan un pánico moral injustificado por los gatos. Aquellos que cuestionan el estado ecológico o epidemiológico de los gatos no son negadores de la ciencia y es una analogía falsa compararlos con los intereses especiales de los corporativos y de la derecha política, los cuales perpetúan las campañas de desinformación de temas como el cigarro y el cambio climático. Existen razones y evidencias de conservación y salud pública para ser escépticos sobre el argumento de que los gatos sueltos constituyen un desastre para la biodiversidad y la salud humana bajo todas las circunstancias. Además, hay temas éticos y políticos que no reciben atención (p. ej.: la ética y la eficacia del manejo letal) relativos a cómo las personas deberían valorar y coexistir con los gatos y la fauna nativa. La sociedad se beneficia más con una estrategia colaborativa para producir un mejor conocimiento científico y ético sobre los gatos que viven sueltos.

Correction: Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189729.].

Author Correction: Intergenerational equity can help to prevent climate change and extinction.

The original Article mistakenly coded the constitutional rights of Australia as containing a governmental duty to protect the environment (blue in the figures); this has been corrected to containing no explicit mention of environmental protection (orange in the figures). The original Article also neglected to code the constitutional rights of the Cayman Islands (no data; yellow in the figures); this has been corrected to containing a governmental duty to protect the environment (blue in the figures).Although no inferences changed as a result of these errors, many values changed slightly and have been corrected. The proportion of the world's nations having constitutional rights to a healthy environment changed from 75% to 74%. The proportions of nations in different categories given in the Fig. 1 caption all changed except purple countries (3.1%): green countries changed from 47.2% to 46.9%; blue countries changed from 24.4% to 24.2%; and orange countries changed from 25.3% to 25.8%. The proportion of the global atmospheric CO2 emitted by the 144 nations changed from 72.6% to 74.4%; the proportion of the world's population represented by the 144 nations changed from 84.9% to 85%. The values of annual average CO2 emissions for blue countries changed from 363,000 Gg to 353,000 Gg and for orange countries from 195,000 Gg to 201,000 Gg. The proportion of threatened mammals endemic to a single country represented by the 144 countries changed from 91% to 84%. Figures 1-3 have been updated to show the correct values and map colours and the Supplementary Information has been updated to give the correct country codes.

Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors.

Large carnivores, such as gray wolves, Canis lupus, are difficult to protect in mixed-use landscapes because some people perceive them as dangerous and because they sometimes threaten human property and safety. Governments may respond by killing carnivores in an effort to prevent repeated conflicts or threats, although the functional effectiveness of lethal methods has long been questioned. We evaluated two methods of government intervention following independent events of verified wolf predation on domestic animals (depredation) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA between 1998-2014, at three spatial scales. We evaluated two intervention methods using log-rank tests and conditional Cox recurrent event, gap time models based on retrospective analyses of the following quasi-experimental treatments: (1) selective killing of wolves by trapping near sites of verified depredation, and (2) advice to owners and haphazard use of non-lethal methods without wolf-killing. The government did not randomly assign treatments and used a pseudo-control (no removal of wolves was not a true control), but the federal permission to intervene lethally was granted and rescinded independent of events on the ground. Hazard ratios suggest lethal intervention was associated with an insignificant 27% lower risk of recurrence of events at trapping sites, but offset by an insignificant 78% increase in risk of recurrence at sites up to 5.42 km distant in the same year, compared to the non-lethal treatment. Our results do not support the hypothesis that Michigan's use of lethal intervention after wolf depredations was effective for reducing the future risk of recurrence in the vicinities of trapping sites. Examining only the sites of intervention is incomplete because neighbors near trapping sites may suffer the recurrence of depredations. We propose two new hypotheses for perceived effectiveness of lethal methods: (a) killing predators may be perceived as effective because of the benefits to a small minority of farmers, and (b) if neighbors experience side-effects of lethal intervention such as displaced depredations, they may perceive the problem growing and then demand more lethal intervention rather than detecting problems spreading from the first trapping site. Ethical wildlife management guided by the "best scientific and commercial data available" would suggest suspending the standard method of trapping wolves in favor of non-lethal methods (livestock guarding dogs or fladry) that have been proven effective in preventing livestock losses in Michigan and elsewhere.