I have been gathering data regarding these issues in wolf conservation and management.
I have noticed absence of certain type of research which I, personally, think might be very useful and hold advisory potential.
Truthfully, in some respects, I would like to discuss an approach which might appear rather like ‘ignoring the problem until it goes away’ (instead of actively attempting to regulate wolf populations and responding lethally to depredation events following recent colonization by large predators of the area) because from what I have learned about wolves (and other large predators) there is a great difference between populations that have been recently (re)colonizing the area vs. stable, settled, long-term populations that have coexisted with the local prey and also humans for decades or even centuries.
There are many benefits of stable and/or long-term resident populations, e.g., established and locally adapted hunting traditions by the predator individuals or social groups, knowledge of prey resources and routes, a larger number of seniors, larger packs with fewer breeders and stable, long-term territories etc.
Additionally, I also think that recolonizing populations might have higher conflict rates because they are only adjusting to the actual prey abundance (and migration itself adds to conflict risk as individuals are passing through, see Mayer, M. et al., 2022).
But the conflict rates might be higher not only during the period of migration but also during the early years of residency while prey and predators are adjusting to one another.
For example, when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, there were too many elk on the landscape.
(This holds true for most areas where large predators have been absent for longer periods, e.g., in Europe this might be due to forest fragmentation and clear-felling that can favour larger number of ungulates by increasing forest edge area.)
At first the wolves in the YNP had to deplete overabundant resources and this allowed them to breed abundantly (multiple litters per pack, a large number of new packs etc.).
It took about 15 years (from 1995 – 2009/10) for the Yellowstone wolves to reach more stable population dynamics and after 2009/10 the fluctuations in reproduction rates/mortality etc. became less pronounced (see Yellowstone Wolf Project Reports)
It is very possible that in such newly reestablished systems, initially (but not ‘briefly’ according to human terms because the process can apparently take decades) – until the prey population drops down back to some sort of equilibrium, the large predators, as well, might be more numerous, their home ranges might more shifting and they can produce more offspring which then disperse.
This is likely accompanied with adjustments in prey behaviour as the prey regroups, alters its foraging dynamics etc. (i.e., wolves cannot ‘settle down’ until the prey, too, has adapted to the new conditions).
This is a time of instability – while the prey population is adjusting (not just in numbers but also behaviourally), pack hunting traditions and knowledge cannot be built because the prey population changes it selection for habitats, social aggregations etc.
During large predator recolonization process, coincidentally, the scientists are less informed on where there are resident populations established and what the connection routes between them are.
When the country’s predator population has been settled (optimal habitats occupied), it becomes more clear where the residents can be found and which habitats would be further selected for as suboptimal ones, where the top migration routes would lie for dispersers to try to navigate between these optimal habitats as well as between optimal and suboptimal habitats, where source and sink dynamics would arise, which the ‘riskier’ areas would be for livestock-predator conflict, where residents den or range nearby risk areas (livestock farms) etc.
During this time, people, as well, learn to live, once more, with large predators – reclaiming methods and knowledge of coexistence that in many places have been lost for over a century, establishing national policies, finding investments for fencing, guardian dogs etc.
To put it briefly, I believe that there might be an initial recolonization period of ‘messy’ interactions and demographics which then perhaps turns into an era of greater stability and mutually achieved adjustments (equilibrium) within the predator population, between predators and their prey, among scientists, among farmers and policy makers etc.
From this I conclude that it is rather possible that conflict rates might be higher during this initial stage of adaptations and turmoil. But I also conclude that if we persecute predators during the early setup (or in areas where the predators have been recolonizing only recently as opposed to long-settled areas), we make it worse because we continually disrupt the environmental processes that would bring about stability and more predictable patterns.
The ‘persecution’ does not entitle merely poaching but also lethal management, either in the form of reaction to livestock depredation or legal population management.
The adverse effects of these actions have been discussed in several publications (on wolves see, e.g., Wieglus, R.B. & Peebles, K.A., 2014 and Santiago-Avila, F.J. et al., 2018).
I suspect that by taking lethal actions toward large predators we prolong the stage of instability and instead of reaching a more pronounced equilibrium in, e.g., 15 years (as in Yellowstone but we should remember that Yellowstone is a nature preserve without human intervention that can intervene with the natural adjustment processes while most predator-inhabited regions are also impacted by humans), the populations cannot settle and adapt and we get decades of conflict (possibly, an eternity).
If we did not panic during the earlier stages of recolonization, in 15 – 30 years we could perhaps experience very low conflict rates or at least rates that were substantially lower.
While if we panic and demand for the ‘perpetrators’ to be culled or for the predator population to be managed lethally, we might end up with decades of high conflict rates and uncertainty due to the constant destabilization of the predator populations.
I am not saying we should just do nothing.
It is best to learn, to take preventive (non-lethal) political measures (e.g., compensations or funding for preventive measures, investment in research etc.), to learn coexistence methods.
But, on some level, during this initial time of uncertainty and adjustments we should perhaps remember that by intervening in the predator (and prey) population dynamics we can make things worse because we never reach the state of more natural balance.
I have not really seen many publications that discuss predator-human conflicts during these recolonization vs. population stability periods.
I suppose it is complicated to collect such data because there are not many places where large predators have been around for 20 – 30 – 40 years and there is no baseline data.
I have been considering how to approach this and I have been wondering if it were possible to carry out research comparing similar habitats in countries where large predators have recolonized recently or where they have been recently expanding their range (e.g., Netherlands, Germany etc.) vs. in countries where large predators have been protected for decades (e.g., Poland since 1998) and also in countries where large predators never went extinct or contracted their range to the same extent and where coexistence tradition never disappeared (such as Romania).
I have read articles by prominent wildlife conservation agencies mentioning that, for example, Romania has some of the lowest predator-human conflict rates and they owed it to the centuries of coexistence but it may possibly also be owing to the stable, long-term predator populations that have evolved alongside prey species.
Unfortunately, I did not bookmark the articles and I cannot find them on Google, either.
While it is difficult to compare habitats in different countries, I believe that, on some crude level, this could be done.
Comparisons could also be drawn (within larger countries or geographic areas) between regions where the predator population has been stable for decades and where they have been expanding their range more recently (this would allow for comparing data from areas that are in greater proximity to one another).
It would thereby be possible to determine whether conflict rates were lower in stable, long-term populations.
It might also be worthwhile to study experience in countries like Poland or Romania specifically because people often claim that if we do not regulate predator numbers, they will ‘take over’ and just live everywhere.
While, for example, wolves sometimes appear near settlements in Poland, in this country – where they are not hunted – it is hardly they have settled in areas that humans want to claim for their own.
This is suggestive that our fear of ‘large predator complete takeover’ is only that – fear. And that in reality there are optimal habitats for large predators, suboptimal habitats and habitats that the predators avoid entirely.
I have not really seen such type of research, either, that would follow settlement patterns assessing whether there are any boundaries that define large predator-potential vs. large predator-free areas.
There is plenty of research that follows the trends of the populations to first settle in optimal habitats and then to occupy suboptimal habitats once the population grows and its range expands.
But there have not been really any attempts (or at least I have not come across them) to determine the lower limit of what is suboptimal (if it exists).
Namely, we should learn whether wolves, lynx, bear and other predators have some type of habitats where they would never settle.
Whether there are boundaries to their range – within their range – and what determines them.
Otherwise, in the eyes of the ordinary people, there is a vision that suboptimal will ultimately mean their backyard 🙂
That predators will first take the forests, then the remote rural areas and then villages, towns and cities.
Bears tend to wander closer to settlements also outside of their dispersal period (which is determined by food abundance, habitat connectivity and other factors) but wolves and lynx, for example, seem to hold further away from humans.
Research aimed at determining ‘where the colonization stops’ might also point at landscape elements that these predators appear to avoid.
The features that mark the difference between suboptimal and inhabitable for them.
If these elements were not wholly destructive (such as intensely farmed fields or highways) to nature and society, they could be introduced in areas where predators were unwanted to mark the boundaries between ‘our land’ and theirs (natural deterrants).
For example, if predators largely avoided systems of small agricultural fields, such could be established around human settlements where the humans wanted to make sure predators stayed away.
References
Mayer, M. et al. Occurrence and Livestock Depredation Patterns by Wolves in Highly Cultivated Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, 2022. DOI=10.3389/fevo.2022.783027 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.783027
Santiago-Avila FJ, Cornman AM, Treves A (2018) Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors. PLOS ONE 13(1): e0189729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189729
Wielgus RB, Peebles KA (2014) Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations. PLoS
ONE 9(12): e113505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0113505
Notes by Ieva 