Effectiveness of interventions for managing human-large carnivore conflicts worldwide: Scare them off, don't remove them

Wolf Population Size and Composition in One of Europe's Strongholds, the Romanian Carpathians

Strategies of coexistence with large carnivores should integrate scientific evidence, population monitoring providing an opportunity for advancing outdated management paradigms. We estimated wolf population density and social dynamics across a 1400 km2 area in a data-poor region of the Romanian Carpathians. Across three consecutive years (2017-2018 until 2019-2020), we collected and genotyped 505 noninvasive DNA wolf samples (scat, hair and urine) to identify individuals, reconstruct pedigrees, and check for the presence of hybridization with domestic dogs. We identified 27 males, 20 females, and one F1 wolf-dog hybrid male. We delineated six wolf packs, with pack size varying between two and seven individuals, and documented yearly changes in pack composition. Using a spatial capture-recapture approach, we estimated population density at 2.35 wolves/100 km2 (95% BCI = 1.68-3.03) and population abundance at 70 individuals (95% BCI = 49-89). Noninvasive DNA data collection coupled with spatial capture-recapture has the potential to inform on wolf population size and dynamics at broader spatial scales, across different sampling areas representative of the diverse Carpathian landscapes, and across different levels of human impact, supporting wildlife decision making in one of Europe's main strongholds for large carnivores.

Assessment of leopard translocations in South Africa

Translocations are commonly employed to mitigate human–carnivore conflict but rarely evaluated, resulting in conflicting reports of success, particularly for leopards (Panthera pardus). We evaluate the status of available leopard translocation data, the factors driving the intentional removal of leopards, and the potential causal factors associated with successful and failed translocation events. We obtained data on 60 leopard translocation events across five provinces in South Africa between 1994 and 2021. We considered a successful translocation outcome when (1) the animal was moved outside of its original home range, (2) the animal established a new home range away from the capture site, (3) no substantive livestock losses were linked to the translocated animal in the post-release monitoring period, and (4) the animal survived at least 6 months post-translocation. If mortality occurred due to factors that were equally likely to impact resident individuals and were unrelated to the translocation event (e.g., poaching), the event was not considered a failed effort. Most translocations were the result of human–carnivore conflict (HCC; 82%, n = 49), stressing the high prevalence of HCC and the importance of advocating preventative conflict mitigation efforts to conserve leopards. The leopards were moved distances from 2.5 to 196.3 km (63.3 ± 51.7km). Forty (67%) translocation events had unknown outcomes, indicating the limited data available on translocation outcomes. This also indicates the disparity in the objectives of translocations by various entities involved with translocations and suggests that monitoring be a prerequisite for future translocations. Twenty events offered reliable outcomes by means of post-event monitoring, with seven (12%) considered successful, with three (5%) as failures, and with four (7%) not moved beyond their original home ranges, while six (8%) ended in unrelated deaths. The failed events were attributed to inter/intra-specific competition, and one animal returned to its original home range after a translocation distance of 68 km. Translocation success was strongly explained by translocation distance. We found that damage-causing leopards were successfully translocated under specific conditions, and longer translocation distances increase success. Translocations are commonly employed but are still poorly monitored. We discuss basic standardized protocols to improve future leopard translocations (including pre- and post-monitoring) while advocating alternative non-lethal practices to reduce the prevalence of human–carnivore conflict.