Kevin R. Crooks

A common intervention to increase tolerance for carnivores is the prevention of livestock losses under the premise that ranchers will better tolerate carnivores if livestock loss is reduced or eliminated. We conducted interview‐assisted surveys in four communities in the Colombian Llanos to characterize human–jaguar ( Panthera onca ) conflict, identify predictors of tolerance (i.e., intention to kill jaguars after a livestock loss), and evaluate the impact of a fencing intervention to increase tolerance. The majority of respondents reported moderate to severe livestock losses pre‐ and post‐intervention. Attitudes and normative support in favor of killing jaguars after a livestock depredation were pervasive. The social psychological variables from theory of planned behavior were stronger predictors of intention to kill jaguars than severity of past losses. The intervention did not increase tolerance, likely because self‐selection bias led to a treatment group that was already tolerant pre‐intervention. Our results suggest that an approach focused only on reducing depredations is unlikely to reduce jaguar killings, as livestock losses are not the only driver. The pervasiveness of livestock losses and support for killing jaguars following a depredation demonstrate a need to reduce livelihood impacts and consider alternative, community‐led approaches to conflict mitigation in the area.

Finding methods to reduce livestock depredations is important for conserving recovering populations of large carnivores and mitigating impacts on ranching livelihoods. This is especially true for ensuring the successful reintroductions of endangered carnivores, such as the Mexican wolf ( Canis lupus baileyi ), an endangered subspecies of gray wolf being reintroduced to their native range in the Southwestern United States and Mexico. Diversionary feeding—providing food caches to divert predators away from preying on livestock—is a strategy to reduce depredations by Mexican wolves but has not been evaluated for its effectiveness. We used data from the Mexican wolf recovery program from 2014 to 2021 in a Bayesian hierarchical model to evaluate whether diversionary feeding reduced livestock depredations by wolf packs and what factors correlated with depredations. Our model accounted for the non‐detection of depredation events, given that some depredations are unencountered or unreported on extensive rangelands. We found that diversionary feeding reduced depredations by an average of 0.78 depredations (43.9%) per pack in the 3 months after application. Prey density was negatively correlated to depredations before diversionary feeding. Minimum pack size and annual livestock density were negatively correlated with depredations after diversionary feeding, while prey density was positively correlated. We estimated a mean of 63% ± 5.4% of depredations were detected with high variation between packs (40.4% ± 7.9% – 74.0% ± 5.3%). Because detections were only two‐thirds of the model‐estimated depredations in our study, our model could improve compensation and targeting of nonlethal tools to mitigate the financial burden of co‐occurrence with wolves by elucidating factors that lead to lower detection and adjusting payment multipliers. Our results indicate diversionary feeding can reduce depredations by wolves on large landscapes in the Western United States but is not a panacea for conflict reduction.

Reducing human–wildlife conflict is critical for global biodiversity conservation and supporting livelihoods in landscapes where people and wildlife co‐occur. Interventions intended to reduce conflicts and their negative outcomes are diverse and widespread, yet there is often a dearth of empirical evidence regarding effectiveness, particularly at appropriate spatiotemporal scales. We investigate an underappreciated question relevant to large carnivore–livestock systems globally regarding spillover effects of anti‐conflict interventions: Do fortified livestock enclosures modify carnivore predation on livestock for neighbors who lack such interventions? We use ca. 25,000 monthly reports from agropastoralists in an East African landscape critical for large carnivore conservation. Results from Bayesian multilevel statistical models demonstrate robust effects of fortified livestock enclosures in reducing reported predation not only in target households, but also in neighboring households that lack such fortification—a beneficial spillover effect. Results provide empirical evidence for policy and practice regarding tools to reduce large carnivore conflicts while pointing to the important role of complex‐systems processes in determining coexistence outcomes.

Regulated hunting of large carnivores as a management tool is a contentious topic. We report the results of two public mail‐back surveys conducted using stratified random sampling to assess Colorado residents' opinions about hunting mountain lions (ML; n = 462) and black bears (BB; n = 458). After weighting the samples to be representative of state population demographics (i.e., age, gender, level of urbanization, geographical region, and hunting participation), we found that the approval of legal and regulated hunting of MLs and BBs was polarized and varied among stakeholder groups and hunting purposes. Most residents, to varying extents, disapproved of hunting for trophy (ML 77.9%; BB 85.6%), hide or fur (80.6%; 75.2%), and recreation (62.7%; 67.0%). Over three‐fourths disapproved of hunting MLs with dogs (88.2%) and electronic calls (75.2%). Moreover, hierarchical regression results revealed that men, hunters, and those who identified as Republican or Republican‐leaning showed more support for hunting. Also, mutualism wildlife value orientation was negatively related to hunting approval, whereas domination value orientation was positively linked. Understanding public perspectives on these issues can enable the social context of wildlife management to be considered in decision‐making, thereby improving large carnivore management outcomes.

The colonization of suitable yet unoccupied habitat due to natural dispersal or human introduction can benefit recovery of threatened species. Predicting habitat suitability and conflict potential of colonization areas can facilitate conservation planning. Planning for reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to the US state of Colorado is underway. Assessing which occupancy sites minimize the likelihood of human–wolf conflict during dispersal events and seasonal movements is critical to the success of this initiative. We used a spatial absorbing Markov chain (SAMC) framework, which extends random walk theory and probabilistically accounts for both movement behaviour and mortality risk, to compare the viability of potential occupancy sites (public lands >500 km² to minimally meet wolf pack range area). The SAMC framework produced spatially explicit predictions of wolf dispersal, philopatry and conflict risk ahead of recolonization prior to reintroduction efforts. Our SAMC model included: (1) movement resistance based on terrain, roads and housing density; (2) mortality risk and potential conflict (absorption) based on livestock presence, social tolerance, land ownership and state boundaries; and (3) site fidelity based on habitat quality. Using this model, we compared 21 public land units by deriving predictions of: (A) relative survival time outside each site, (B) intensity of use and retention time within each site and (C) the probability of use on adjacent public lands. We also predicted and mapped potential conflict hotspots associated with each site. Among the units assessed, a complex of USFS Wilderness areas near Aspen, chiefly the Hunter‐Fryingpan and Collegiate Peaks Wilderness areas, had the best overall rankings when comparing predictions of each metric. The area balances high‐quality, well‐connected habitat with relatively low livestock density and high social tolerance. Synthesis and applications. Our findings highlight the utility of the SAMC framework for assessing colonization areas and the capacity to identify locations for effective proactive management, especially of conflict prone species. The flexibility of the SAMC framework enables predicting likely areas of philopatry and human–wildlife conflict using spatially explicit metrics which can improve the success of conservation translocations and management of species with changing geographic extents.

To inform conservation policy, we solicited scientist perspectives on a controversial conservation issue—the US Fish and Wildlife Service status review to relist gray wolves in the western United States on the Endangered Species Act. Our survey of authors of recent scientific publications on US wolves ( n = 84; 26% response rate) indicated that about two‐thirds of respondents supported relisting. About 80% disapproved of Idaho and Montana wolf management plans and believed that they pose a threat to wolf populations in the western United States. Nearly half of respondents were unsure if population estimates of wolves in Idaho and Montana were accurate and reliable and about a fifth believed they were not. Both proponents and opponents of relisting primarily offered policy‐based arguments about state versus federal management, followed by biological arguments about threats to wolves, and social and ethical arguments about wolves and their management.

Urban expansion can fundamentally alter wildlife movement and gene flow, but how urbanization alters pathogen spread is poorly understood. Here we combine high resolution host and viral genomic data with landscape variables to examine the context of viral spread in puma from two contrasting regions: one bounded by the wildland urban interface (WUI) and one unbounded with minimal anthropogenic development. We found landscape variables and host gene flow explained significant amounts of variation of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) spread in the WUI, but not in the unbounded region. The most important predictors of viral spread also differed; host spatial proximity, host relatedness, and mountain ranges played a role in FIV spread in the WUI, whereas unpaved roads were more important in the unbounded region. Our research demonstrates how anthropogenic landscapes can alter pathogen spread, providing a more nuanced understanding of host-pathogen relationships to inform disease ecology in free-ranging species.