Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective

In recent decades, the integration of horses (Equus ferus) in European rewilding initiatives has gained widespread popularity due to their potential for regulating vegetation and restoring natural ecosystems. However, employing horses in conservation efforts presents important challenges, which we here explore and discuss. These challenges encompass the lack of consensus on key terms inherent to conservation and rewilding, the entrenched culture and strong emotions associated with horses, low genetic diversity and high susceptibility to hereditary diseases in animals under human selection, as well as insufficient consideration for the social behaviour of horses in wild-living populations. In addition, management of wild-living horses involves intricate welfare, ethics and legislative dimensions. Anthropocentric population-control initiatives may be detrimental to horse group structures since they tend to prioritise individual welfare over the health of populations and ecosystems. To overcome these challenges, we provide comprehensive recommendations. These involve a systematic acquisition of genetic information, a focus on genetic diversity rather than breed purity and minimal veterinary intervention in wild-living populations. Further, we advise allowing for natural top-down and bottom-up control - or, if impossible, simulating this by culling or non-lethal removal of horses - instead of using fertility control for population management. We advocate for intensified collaboration between conservation biologists and practitioners and enhanced communication with the general public. Decision-making should be informed by a thorough understanding of the genetic makeup, common health issues and dynamics, and social behaviour in wild-living horse populations. Such a holistic approach is essential to reconcile human emotions associated with horses with the implementation of conservation practices that are not only effective but also sustainable for the long-term viability of functional, biodiverse ecosystems, while rehabilitating the horse as a widespread wild-living species in Europe.

The Causes and Consequences of Public Misunderstanding of Shark Conservation

Sharks and their relatives face serious conservation challenges. In addition to more effective implementation of regulations already on the books, they need more and stronger conservation and management policies to prevent the extinction of many species, which would have associated negative ecological and economic consequences. Many members of the public are aware of and concerned by shark conservation challenges, but there is widespread misunderstanding of the threats to sharks and the available policy solutions to address those threats. Such misunderstanding has been spread by both well-intentioned but uninformed shark enthusiasts (i.e., people who care and want to help but have limited or incorrect knowledge of key facts and evidence) and also by extremist activist organizations (i.e., those far outside of mainstream norms). Specifically, many members of the public incorrectly believe that the practice of shark finning (and associated demand for shark fins) is the largest or only threat to sharks. In general, the public is far less familiar with widely used and effective tools such as sustainable fisheries management as a solution to shark conservation threats. Many members of the public incorrectly believe that banning the 1% of the global shark fin trade that is the most sustainable will be a major victory for shark conservation. Many members of the public are heavily influenced by information from uninformed extremists rather than from experts. These misunderstandings result in suboptimal policy outcomes, and even conflict between stakeholder groups that ostensibly share goals or desired outcomes. This perspective summarizes a decade of work attempting to understand the causes and consequences of widespread misunderstanding about shark conservation threats and solutions, mapping each along the Science-Policy Interface. It also proposes solutions focusing on sharing our hard-earned expertise with the interested public in an accessible format.

Expanding and Evaluating Public Satisfaction with Wildlife Governance: Insights from Deer Management in Indiana, USA

Wildlife agencies in North America desire to incorporate broader public interests into decision-making so they can realize the principle of governing wildlife in the public trust. Public satisfaction is a key component of good governance but evaluating satisfaction with wildlife management focuses on traditional user experiences rather than perceptions of agency performance. We draw from political science, business, and conservation social science to develop a multidimensional concept of satisfaction with wildlife management that includes agency performance, service quality, trust in the managing agency, and informational trust. We use data collected from a 2021 survey of Indiana residents to analyze the social and cognitive determinants of satisfaction with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) management. Quantile regression models revealed that respondents' acceptability of management methods and deer-related concerns most strongly affected performance and quality components, whereas respondent characteristics mostly affected trust components of the index. Future research should associate satisfaction with key variables we did not fully capture including perceived control, psychological distance, and norms of interaction between wildlife agencies and the public. Expanding agency conceptions of public satisfaction represents a critical step toward public trust thinking and the practice of good wildlife governance in North America.