Predator control should not be a shot in the dark

Abstract

Livestock owners traditionally use various non‐lethal and lethal methods to protect their domestic animals from wild predators. However, many of these methods are implemented without first considering experimental evidence of their effectiveness in mitigating predation‐related threats or avoiding ecological degradation. To inform future policy and research on predators, we systematically evaluated evidence for interventions against carnivore (canid, felid, and ursid) predation on livestock in North American and European farms. We also reviewed a selection of tests from other continents to help assess the global generality of our findings. Twelve published tests – representing five non‐lethal methods and 7 lethal methods – met the accepted standard of scientific inference (random assignment or quasi‐experimental case‐control) without bias in sampling, treatment, measurement, or reporting. Of those twelve, prevention of livestock predation was demonstrated in six tests (four non‐lethal and two lethal), whereas counterintuitive increases in predation were shown in two tests (zero non‐lethal and two lethal); the remaining four (one non‐lethal and three lethal) showed no effect on predation. Only two non‐lethal methods (one associated with livestock‐guarding dogs and the other with a visual deterrent termed “fladry”) assigned treatments randomly, provided reliable inference, and demonstrated preventive effects. We recommend that policy makers suspend predator control efforts that lack evidence for functional effectiveness and that scientists focus on stringent standards of evidence in tests of predator control.

Predator control should not be a shot in the dark

Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2016 papers

Abstract

Related Papers