Human-wildlife interactions are increasing around the world as a result of land-use changes, increasing development and global warming. A frequent consequence of people and predators living in increasingly close proximity is livestock loss, which can lead to dramatic financial losses in rural communities. Desperate farmers often resort to killing the predators with firearms, poison or traps in order to protect their livelihood. While this may offer brief relief, increasing research shows that these lethal methods are not an effective long-term solution.
Laura Talbert, an alumna of the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE) who received her MSc in Conservation and Rural Development in 2019, worked with Lecturer in Conservation Science, Dr Simon Black, and another DICE alumnus, Sam Leslie (now WCS Savannakhet Program Director), to publish a review article detailing the benefits of non-lethal predator controls. Guard dogs, improved livestock corrals and visual or audible alarms have consistently proven to be more effective at protecting farms than lethal methods. Not only are non-lethal methods a better solution for farmers, they also offer conservation benefit, as these predators are often at-risk species whose populations are under threat.
While there are many studies on human-wildlife conflicts and the resulting livestock loss, the human dimension of the issue is often ignored. The authors argue for the importance of understanding local beliefs concerning wildlife, in particular the perceived risk of predators. Interactions with predators are greatly influenced by how dangerous the community thinks the predator is – if an animal is viewed as dangerous, it becomes socially acceptable to kill, regardless of whether it poses a risk or not.
Similarly, a community’s perception of a predator control method is also subjective. Whilst the goal of predator controls is to reduce livestock loss and thus retaliatory killing of wildlife, getting people to actually believe in and use the methods is fundamental.
Laura explains, “If a farmer believes a predator control is working, he will continue to use it. If he thinks it isn’t working, he will stop using it. It’s quite simple, but it’s something that conservationists aren’t investigating.”
Perceived effectiveness is influenced by peer pressure, the user’s belief the method will work and their confidence in being able to use the predator control. These perceptions are crucial for conservationists to understand in order to develop long-lasting conflict reduction strategies.
This research informed the design of Laura’s subsequent study on the perceived effectiveness of visual predator deterrents (‘Foxlights’) in the Indian Himalayas. These solar-powered strobe lights are installed on homes and livestock corrals in the hope of scaring off snow leopards, Himalayan brown bears and Tibetan wolves.
Use of predator controls to address human-wildlife conflict by Laura Talbert, Samuel C Leslie and Simon A Black has been published in the International Journal of Avian & Wildlife Biology.
