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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Erik R. Olson, Timothy R. Van Deelen, Adrian P. Wydeven, Stephen J. Ventura, David M. Macfarland
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2015-12-01
Series:Wildlife Society Bulletin
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846120100392861696
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 DOAJ
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
id doaj-art-cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e76
institution Kabale University
issn 2328-5540
language English
publishDate 2015-12-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Wildlife Society Bulletin
spelling doaj-art-cccc366f34b14e69b99f4eca0ade0e762024-12-16T13:05:56ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402015-12-0139467668810.1002/wsb.606Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USAErik R. Olson0Timothy R. Van Deelen1Adrian P. Wydeven2Stephen J. Ventura3David M. Macfarland4Nelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonWI53706USADepartment of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonWI53706USATimber Wolf AllianceNorthland CollegeAshlandWI54806USANelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonWI53706USAWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesRhinelanderWI54501USAABSTRACT 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.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606animal damage managementCanis lupuscarnivore conservationconflict mitigationhuman–wildlife conflictlivestock depredation
spellingShingle Erik R. Olson
Timothy R. Van Deelen
Adrian P. Wydeven
Stephen J. Ventura
David M. Macfarland
Characterizing wolf–human conflicts in Wisconsin, USA
Wildlife Society Bulletin
animal damage management
Canis lupus
carnivore conservation
conflict mitigation
human–wildlife conflict
livestock depredation
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
url https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.606
work_keys_str_mv AT erikrolson characterizingwolfhumanconflictsinwisconsinusa
AT timothyrvandeelen characterizingwolfhumanconflictsinwisconsinusa
AT adrianpwydeven characterizingwolfhumanconflictsinwisconsinusa
AT stephenjventura characterizingwolfhumanconflictsinwisconsinusa
AT davidmmacfarland characterizingwolfhumanconflictsinwisconsinusa