Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA
ABSTRACT Management of human–wildlife conflict is a critical component of wildlife conservation globally, especially for large carnivores. Understanding general patterns of conflict can guide management decisions, such as whether or not to consider lethal or nonlethal controls. We used wolf–human co...
Published in: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/article/cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 |
_version_ | 1821487431606599680 |
---|---|
author | Erik R. Olson Timothy R. Van Deelen Adrian P. Wydeven Stephen J. Ventura David M. Macfarland |
author_facet | Erik R. Olson Timothy R. Van Deelen Adrian P. Wydeven Stephen J. Ventura David M. Macfarland |
author_sort | Erik R. Olson |
collection | Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 676 |
container_title | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
container_volume | 39 |
description | ABSTRACT Management of human–wildlife conflict is a critical component of wildlife conservation globally, especially for large carnivores. Understanding general patterns of conflict can guide management decisions, such as whether or not to consider lethal or nonlethal controls. We used wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA (1999–2011), to analyze the 4 main classes of conflict typically associated with large carnivores. Of 1,662 reported wolf (Canis lupus) incidents, 801 incidents were verified as wolf. Incidents varied seasonally, with animal husbandry practices and wolf energy demands, and increased over time in absolute numbers. Human safety concerns and nonhunting dog complaints were classified as residential‐, wildland‐, or farm‐associated. Human presence or intervention reduced the likelihood of dog mortality (vs. injury) following a wolf attack. Some wolf packs were primarily implicated in either hunting or nonhunting dog conflicts, with nonhunting dog attacks for the most part being attributable to lone or dispersing wolves. No complaints about aggressive behavior or wolf attacks on humans were investigated during the study period; however, wolves did approach humans at close range (median = 12.5 m) and attacked pets near homes. Wolf–human conflicts cluster spatially, which could be a way to prioritize mitigation efforts. To guide management decisions, managers should determine 1) what behaviors characterize habituated wolves; 2) what characteristics of wolf–human conflict determine whether or not human safety concerns should be considered; and 3) under what conditions should lethal control be implemented. Continued detailed reporting by investigators of wildlife complaints, especially behavioral data on wildlife, domestic animal(s), and complainant, will inform management decisions and facilitate assessment of prior decisions. © 2015 The Wildlife Society. |
format | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
genre | Canis lupus |
genre_facet | Canis lupus |
geographic | Lone |
geographic_facet | Lone |
id | ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 |
institution | Open Polar |
language | English |
long_lat | ENVELOPE(11.982,11.982,65.105,65.105) |
op_collection_id | ftdoajarticles |
op_container_end_page | 688 |
op_doi | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 |
op_relation | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/toc/2328-5540 doi:10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/article/cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 |
op_source | Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol 39, Iss 4, Pp 676-688 (2015) |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Wiley |
record_format | openpolar |
spelling | ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 2025-01-16T21:25:18+00:00 Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA Erik R. Olson Timothy R. Van Deelen Adrian P. Wydeven Stephen J. Ventura David M. Macfarland 2015-12-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/article/cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 EN eng Wiley https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/toc/2328-5540 doi:10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/article/cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol 39, Iss 4, Pp 676-688 (2015) animal damage management Canis lupus carnivore conservation conflict mitigation human–wildlife conflict livestock depredation General. Including nature conservation geographical distribution QH1-199.5 article 2015 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 2024-12-19T16:33:12Z ABSTRACT Management of human–wildlife conflict is a critical component of wildlife conservation globally, especially for large carnivores. Understanding general patterns of conflict can guide management decisions, such as whether or not to consider lethal or nonlethal controls. We used wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA (1999–2011), to analyze the 4 main classes of conflict typically associated with large carnivores. Of 1,662 reported wolf (Canis lupus) incidents, 801 incidents were verified as wolf. Incidents varied seasonally, with animal husbandry practices and wolf energy demands, and increased over time in absolute numbers. Human safety concerns and nonhunting dog complaints were classified as residential‐, wildland‐, or farm‐associated. Human presence or intervention reduced the likelihood of dog mortality (vs. injury) following a wolf attack. Some wolf packs were primarily implicated in either hunting or nonhunting dog conflicts, with nonhunting dog attacks for the most part being attributable to lone or dispersing wolves. No complaints about aggressive behavior or wolf attacks on humans were investigated during the study period; however, wolves did approach humans at close range (median = 12.5 m) and attacked pets near homes. Wolf–human conflicts cluster spatially, which could be a way to prioritize mitigation efforts. To guide management decisions, managers should determine 1) what behaviors characterize habituated wolves; 2) what characteristics of wolf–human conflict determine whether or not human safety concerns should be considered; and 3) under what conditions should lethal control be implemented. Continued detailed reporting by investigators of wildlife complaints, especially behavioral data on wildlife, domestic animal(s), and complainant, will inform management decisions and facilitate assessment of prior decisions. © 2015 The Wildlife Society. Article in Journal/Newspaper Canis lupus Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Lone ENVELOPE(11.982,11.982,65.105,65.105) Wildlife Society Bulletin 39 4 676 688 |
spellingShingle | animal damage management Canis lupus carnivore conservation conflict mitigation human–wildlife conflict livestock depredation General. Including nature conservation geographical distribution QH1-199.5 Erik R. Olson Timothy R. Van Deelen Adrian P. Wydeven Stephen J. Ventura David M. Macfarland Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA |
title | Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA |
title_full | Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA |
title_fullStr | Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA |
title_full_unstemmed | Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA |
title_short | Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA |
title_sort | characterizing wolf–human conflicts in wisconsin, usa |
topic | animal damage management Canis lupus carnivore conservation conflict mitigation human–wildlife conflict livestock depredation General. Including nature conservation geographical distribution QH1-199.5 |
topic_facet | animal damage management Canis lupus carnivore conservation conflict mitigation human–wildlife conflict livestock depredation General. Including nature conservation geographical distribution QH1-199.5 |
url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606 https://doaj.org/article/cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76 |