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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Main Authors: Erik R. Olson, Timothy R. Van Deelen, Adrian P. Wydeven, Stephen J. Ventura, David M. Macfarland
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