From the winter issue of The Wildlife Professional.

An open-access article written in collaboration with the Wildlife Disease Association — a premier partner of The Wildlife Society.

DISEASE TRANSMISSION CREATES A THORNY WILDLIFE-LIVESTOCK DIVIDE

Earlier this year, a federal judge upheld a 2010 decision by the Payette National Forest in Idaho to close 70 percent of its forest to domestic sheep grazing in an effort to protect the region’s wild bighorn sheep (Idaho Statesman, 2014). The decision was based on evidence that domestic sheep can spread pneumonia to wild bighorns and, as a result, forest service officials called for separation of the animals. The federal judge, Wallace Tashima was responding to the Idaho Wool Growers Association’s motion to overturn the decision, based on an argument that there was uncertainty over whether domestic sheep did indeed transmit pneumonia to wild bighorns.

Unfortunately, disease transmission from livestock to wildlife and vice versa does occur. In fact, every year, cattle in Michigan fall prey to bovine tuberculosis — a disease once widespread in cattle that is now spread primarily by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Meanwhile, wild bighorns are regularly infected with pneumonia that’s transmitted by domestic sheep — forcing wildlife and livestock managers to do all they can to address and manage these ongoing threats amidst conflict and controversy.

When Wildlife Infect Livestock: Bovine Tuberculosis

Warren MacNeill, conservation officer with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division surveys piles of carrots (foreground left) and sugar beets (background center) placed as deer bait in Michigan’s Alcona County, where baiting has been illegal since 1999. While local cattlemen generally applaud the restrictions, merchants, vegetable farmers, and many deer hunters decry them as unneeded, detrimental to the “good nutrition” of the deer, and an unconstitutional intrusion on property owners’ rights.
Image Credit: Daniel O’Brien

Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis (bTB), originated from an ancestor of human tuberculosis (Smith et al. 2009). The most common strains of M. bovis were likely imported to North America from Great Britain in the nineteenth century via infected cattle (Smith et al. 2011). M. bovis infects a wide variety of species (O’Reilly and Daborn 1995), including humans (Grange 2001). In fact, public health concerns about bTB by 1900, particularly in children (Palmer and Waters 2011), led federal, state, and local governments to establish the bTB eradication program in 1917, which included cooperative measures such as tuberculin testing of cattle and meat inspection laws in an effort to eliminate bTB in livestock (Olmstead and Rhode 2004, Palmer and Waters 2011). The program was largely successful and, by 1940, researchers estimated that 25,600 human lives in the United States had been saved as a result (Olmstead and Rhode 2004). Further, the program’s benefits to the livestock sector between 1918 and 1962 were estimated at approximately $3.2 billion.

Despite these successes, however, bTB continues to persist in free-ranging wildlife, although in some cases, culling has proven hugely successful in reducing transmission and the potential for transmission from the wild to domestic cattle herds (Corner 2007, O’Brien et al. 2011b). For example, although feral Asian water buffalo (Bubalis bubalus) in Australia maintained bTB, intensive culling eliminated both the disease and its reservoir host. In fact, combined with testing and controlled movement of cattle, culling allowed Australia to declare bTB freedom in 1997, and 2000 marked the last case of bTB in cattle. Further, the disease was declared exotic to Australia in 2010 (Radunz 2014).

New Zealand has seen similar successes related to introduced brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) — identified as maintenance hosts of bTB since 1967. As part of the bTB eradication effort, officials employed an intensive possum culling strategy of “systematic overkill” (O’Brien et al. 2011b), combined with cattle testing and movement controls. As a result, infected cattle herds have been reduced by 95 percent since 1994. Further, bTB has been eradicated from possum populations across 500,000 hectares since 2011 (Livingstone et al. 2014).

Complicated Eradication Efforts

Culling is more straightforward when target species such as water buffalo and possums are considered invasive pests and, therefore, treated as such. However, where the target species is publicly esteemed for its economic and cultural merit such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the U.S. (an important source of hunting revenue) or for its conservation value such as wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) in Canada (considered the most important remnant population of a once-abundant species), opposition to culling has forced scientists and wildlife managers to search for alternatives. These include vaccination (Waters et al. 2012), programs for captive breeding of bTB-free animals followed by reintroduction (Nishi et al. 2006), and human dimensions approaches that are aimed at improving hunter cooperation with agency disease control strategies (O’Brien et al. 2011b).

Culling can also have complex, unforeseen consequences. In the case of Eurasian badgers (Meles meles) in the United Kingdom, culling has been found to disrupt the animals’ social structure, causing survivors to range more widely and over longer distances. This phenomenon — referred to as the “perturbation effect” or PE (Godfray et al. 2013) — may increase bTB transmission among badgers and to cattle. In a major Randomized Badger Culling Trial (Donnelly et al. 2007) conducted at 10 replicated sites in the U.K. between 1998 and 2005, the PE was considered responsible for increased prevalence of bTB in badgers in culled areas and suggested as an explanation for higher rates of cattle herd infections in some culled areas. In contrast, a major badger culling trial in the Republic of Ireland between 1997 and 2002 found culling significantly and consistently reduced the risk of cattle herd infections in culled areas (Griffin et al. 2005).

A domestic goat and bighorn sheep share the same space on open range land in
Hells Canyon, Idaho. Both sheep and goats can carry lethal strains of bacteria and mycoplasma. Although grazers insist that it is rare for the animals to co-mingle, numerous cases have been documented where feral or lost sheep or goats have joined bighorn herds, and vice versa.
Image Credit: C.A. Johnson

Public involvement also can aid or complicate disease eradication efforts. In Minnesota, for example, the public tolerated four consecutive years — 2007 to 2010 — of ground and aerial culling of deer in order to eradicate a spillover of bTB from cattle before it became established (Carstensen and DonCarlos 2011). Impressively, deer hunters’ license fees funded approximately 90 percent of culling operations (Carstensen et al. 2011). Combined with increased harvest opportunity, culling reduced the deer population in Minnesota’s core area by 55 percent and apparent bTB prevalence to zero. No infected deer have been identified since 2009, and Minnesota regained its bTB accredited-free status for cattle in 2011.

In contrast, Michigan’s residents were opposed to large reductions in deer numbers (Dorn and Mertig 2005, Frawley and Rudolph 2008), making agency culling politically untenable. Further, winter feeding and baiting of deer, which concentrates them and exacerbates disease transmission, has been difficult to eliminate. While hunters halved the deer population in Michigan’s core area by 2004, it has since rebounded, and the downward trend in bTB prevalence abated (O’Brien et al. 2011a).

The debate surrounding the use of culling for bTB control in Michigan is a good example of differing perceptions between wildlife conservationists and livestock advocates about what constitutes appropriate use of a publicly owned wildlife resource. For example, hunters and animal protection advocates find themselves (perhaps awkwardly) on common ground in opposing drastic reductions in deer numbers to eradicate bTB, emphasizing the low prevalence of disease and its imperceptible effect on the deer population (O’Brien et al. 2011a). Cattle producers counter that if even one of their cows is diagnosed with bTB, they risk the entire herd being depopulated. Further, cattle farms in the state that are infected with bTB must agree to a federal- and state-approved herd plan that mandates farm management practices if the producer is to receive full indemnity for condemned cattle. Such practices may include restricting access of cattle to lowland areas frequented by deer.

Federal and state epidemiologists consider these measures prudent risk management. Cattle producers argue that forcing them to exclude any of their land from grazing constitutes unconstitutional ‘taking’ of private property by the government.

When Livestock Infect Wildlife: Bighorn Pneumonia

In contrast to bTB, with pneumonia the primary concern is that domestic livestock may spread disease to wildlife. Researchers have accumulated a large body of evidence over many years including nearly 100 years of observations of bighorn getting sick and dying after contact with domestic sheep or goats (Goodson 1982), observations on experimental mixing under more controlled conditions (Wehausen et al. 2011), pathogen inoculation trials (Wehausen et al. 2011), cellular level research on comparative immune function (Silflow et al. 1989, 1993), and risk analyses (Clifford et al. 2009).

Domestic sheep and goats can carry a number of pathogens including, but not limited to Mannheimia haemolytica and Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, which are pathogenic to bighorn and Dall sheep

(Callan et al. 1991, Foreyt et al. 1994a, 1996, George et al. 2008, Onderka and Wishart 1988). These two organisms, singly or more often together, can cause acute fatal pneumonia in bighorn sheep, sometimes wiping out entire herds; but survivors can carry hem and subsequently pass them along to lambs and other susceptible adult animals. Although not all bighorn pneumonia outbreaks have been associated with prior contact with domestic sheep, many across most of the western states have. In fact, an analysis of over a dozen experimental or observational studies where captive bighorn were exposed to domestic sheep found that 79 of 80 otherwise healthy bighorn put in contact with normal domestic sheep under varying conditions in 12 separate trials died. To a perhaps lesser extent, domestic goats may pose a similar risk to bighorn sheep (Jansen et al 2006, Foreyt 1994b).

Recently, researchers at Washington State University were able to provide unequivocal evidence that domestic sheep can transmit fatal bacterial pneumonia to bighorn sheep under conditions of close contact (Lawrence et al. 2010). As part of the study, they introduced gene spliced and florescent-dyed bacteria, Mannheimia (formerly Pasteurella) haemolytica into the nasal cavity of domestic sheep, noting that the organisms were not present in bighorn. Researchers found that when the sheep and bighorn were separated by double fencing at various distances nothing happened; however, when they were allowed fenceline contact, one bighorn became ill. Further, when the animals were allowed to comingle, all the bighorn quickly succumbed to pneumonia caused by the gene-marked bacteria.

Richard Harris (left), wildlife manager with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Glen Landrus, then president of the Wild Sheep Foundation’s Washington Chapter, examine a bighorn ewe from the Tieton herd that died of pneumonia in April 2013. Ultimately, the entire herd was sacrificed in an effort to prevent the spread of a devastating pneumonia outbreak to adjacent bighorn herds.
Image Credit: Kristin Mansfield

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and bighorn advocacy groups have sought to implement policies and practices, such as swapping problematic sheep allotments for cattle grazing allotments (cattle don’t carry the disease) or trucking sheep out of high country instead of trailing them down through bighorn habitat, that maximize separation and reduce risk of contact—basic principles of preventive medicine. The cattle industry also uses preventive approaches to limit spread of “shipping fever pneumonia” in cattle, a very similar disease caused by many of the same bacteria that can lead to severe disease and death in calves especially after stressful conditions such as shipping long distances. In addition, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has endorsed a set of best management practices that emphasize separation of domestic and bighorn sheep to reduce disease transmission.

However, here, too, there’s conflict over management measures and policies to address disease transmission from domestic sheep to wildlife. For example, groups such as the Wild Sheep Foundation, Western

Watersheds Project, and others have argued that retiring domestic sheep grazing allotments, or optimizing viewing and hunting of bighorn sheep, is far more financially productive than domestic sheep grazing on what are fairly marginal lands. In addition, they argue that funds spent by bighorn viewers and hunters better support rural communities, and that the fees paid by woolgrowers to use public lands are often less than the cost of administering the leases.

Meanwhile, grazers point out that just as wildlife species often can’t survive without using private lands, many grazers can’t survive without access to public lands. Further, woolgrower lobbyists argue that close contact between the animals rarely occurs under free-ranging conditions. These lobbyists have succeeded in blocking USFS funding to reduce contact between bighorn and domestic sheep until a more effective and efficient vaccine is developed. The current prototype vaccine requires four evenly spaced shots given to healthy animals at optimal intervals — something that’s not feasible to implement in the case of free-ranging bighorn sheep. The vaccine also doesn’t provide any protection against Mycoplasma ovipneumonia, a major causal component of the bighorn pneumonia complex. Further, the organism lives within cells, which makes any vaccination effort nearly impossible.

Still, efforts are underway to at least partially bridge some of these divides. In Wyoming, the Statewide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group — established in 2000 — developed a set of recommendations in 2004 that has served as a template for managing bighorn and domestic sheep (State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Working Group, 2004). For example, the working group encourages the Wyoming

Game and Fish Department to prepare a map showing the distribution of occupied habitat for native core and reintroduced bighorn sheep populations. It also recommends the domestic sheep industry explore grazing management strategies that reduce impacts and enhance bighorn survival and calls for federal agencies to help develop and fund bighorn and domestic sheep education and outreach programs.

A Deep Divide

Despite a handful of attempts to achieve consensus, debate and conflict continue to play out in the news media, university research labs, state and federal wildlife and wild land management agencies, local communities, and in political efforts to either establish or block risk-reduction efforts. Disease-based wildlife-livestock conflicts are really a divide between business and utilitarian perspectives and traditional conservation perspectives about wildlife management. The divide is about whose financial interests will predominate when disease conflicts exist, who will have the greatest use of public resources, who will bear the costs of limiting disease transmission, and whether state and federal disease control and wildlife management policies can be enforced on private or even public land.

The divide isn’t just about disease and biology; there are huge political, financial, legal and social interests and precedents at stake. As is the case with conflicts over brucellosis in the Yellowstone ecosystem and Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada, efforts to resolve problems posed by bTB in deer and cattle and pneumonia in bighorn and domestic sheep continue to evolve. There are no easy answers and, as a result, these divides promise to be with us for the foreseeable future.

Feral swine have greatly expanded their range over the last 30 years. At the same time, the annual estimated damage they cause, plus the costs of control, has risen to $1.5 billion. This invasive species can damage crops, kill young livestock and wildlife, destroy property, harm natural resources, and carry diseases that threaten other animals as well as people and water supplies.

In recognition of these threats, Congress has authorized the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to conduct a national program to reduce feral swine damage.  Before making a decision on the best way to manage feral swine damage, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that APHIS evaluate the potential impacts associated with various strategies.

Stakeholders at all levels are invited to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the APHIS Feral Swine Damage Management Program. APHIS anticipates that EPA will publish a notice that APHIS’s DEIS is available for public review in the Federal Register in December. A copy of the DEIS can be reviewed here. Comments will be accepted through February 2, 2015.

The DEIS considers five alternatives to address damage throughout the United States and territories wherever feral swine are found.  All alternatives would be implemented consistent with local objectives for managing feral swine.

APHIS has worked on the analysis with cooperating agencies including USDA’s Forest Service; the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDI) Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and National Invasive Species Council; the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. USDI’s Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service have also participated in the preparation of the DEIS.

APHIS will accept comments either through Federal eRulemaking Portal or in writing to Project Managers, Feral Swine EIS, USDA APHIS-WS, 732 Lois Drive, Sun Prairie, WI 53590. For further information, please contact Dr. Kimberly Wagner, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 732 Lois Drive, Sun Prairie, WI 53590; (608) 837-2727.

Wildlife Services is a Strategic Partner of The Wildlife Society

Over 550 letters from The Wildlife Society members sent to Senators urged them to pass a bill to increase the price of Duck Stamps from $15 to $25. The Senate passed the bill on December 2, and the bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama yesterday marking the culmination of coordinated efforts from lawmakers and conservation organizations.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps — better known as Duck Stamps — are permits required to hunt waterfowl in the United States. The money raised by the stamps goes to wetland conservation efforts that in turn lead to more waterfowl and waterfowl habitat. The long-awaited price increase is the first since 1991.

The Federal Ducks Stamp Act of 2014 (H.R. 5069) was introduced in July along with an identical Senate version (S. 2621). After months of relatively little action and extended Congressional recess during the election season, the House passed the bill in late November with the Senate following suit in early December.

The Wildlife Society headquarters and members around the country supported the bill throughout the legislative process with letters, phone calls, and emails. TWS worked together with other conservation organizations on a coalition letter in April supporting a price increase. After the House passed H.R. 5069, TWS members responded to a TWS Action Alert in early December, submitting over 550 letters encouraging their Senators to support the bill.

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) confirmed the presence of highly pathogenic (HPAI) H5 avian influenza in wild birds in Whatcom County, Washington on Dec. 16.  Two separate virus strains were identified: HPAI H5N2 in northern pintail ducks and HPAI H5N8 in captive Gyrfalcons that were fed hunter-killed wild birds.  Neither virus has been found in commercial poultry anywhere in the United States. There is no immediate public health concern with either of these avian influenza viruses.

Both H5N2 and H5N8 viruses have been found in other parts of the world and have not caused any human infection to date.  While neither virus has been found in commercial poultry, federal authorities emphasize that poultry and wild birds are safe to eat even if they carry the disease if they are properly handled and cooked to a temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Whatcom County finding was reported and identified quickly due to increased surveillance in light of HPAI H5N2 avian influenza outbreaks in poultry affecting commercial poultry farms in British Columbia, Canada.  The northern pintail duck samples were collected by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife following a waterfowl die-off at Wiser Lake, Washington, and were sent to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wildlife Health Center for diagnostic evaluation and initial avian influenza testing.  USGS identified the samples as presumptive positive for H5 avian influenza and sent them to USDA for confirmation. The gyrfalcon samples were collected after the falconer reported signs of illness in his birds.

Following existing avian influenza response plans, USDA is working with Federal and State partners on additional surveillance and testing of both commercial and wild birds in the nearby area.

Wild birds can be carriers of HPAI viruses without the birds appearing sick.  People should avoid contact with sick/dead poultry or wildlife. If contact occurs, wash your hands with soap and water and change clothing before having any contact with domestic poultry and birds.

Federal officials emphasize that all bird owners should continue practicing good biosecurity. This includes preventing contact between your birds and wild birds, and reporting sick birds or unusual bird deaths, either through your state veterinarian or through USDA’s toll-free number at 1-866-536-7593.

Avian influenza (AI) is caused by influenza type A viruses which are endemic in some wild birds (such as wild ducks and swans) which can infect poultry (such as chickens, turkeys, pheasants, quail, domestic ducks, geese and guinea fowl).

Read the complete joint press release here.

Wildlife Services is a Strategic Partner of The Wildlife Society

Perth Zoo recently released 14 zoo-born numbats (Myrmecobius fasciatus), also called banded anteaters, into Dryandra Woodland in Western Australia as part of an ongoing effort to bolster wild populations of the endangered marsupial that’s found only in Australia. Thus far, Perth Zoo, which has the world’s only breeding center for numbats, in collaboration with Western Australia’s Department of Parks and Wildlife has reared 195 numbats through its breeding program. Those numbats will eventually help establish new populations and support already existing wild populations.

Habitat loss in addition to predation from birds of prey, carpet pythons, foxes, and cats have reduced the number of numbats to fewer than 1,000 individuals. “The breeding program is critical to increasing numbers and getting populations out there. It’s one of the only options that we have,” said Dani Jose, a keeper and numbat researcher at the Perth Zoo. “It has to be done that way or they’d be gone.”

Many zoo breeding programs for threatened or endangered species try to help by maintaining or increasing the size and genetic diversity of populations, according to the American Zoological Association. In fact, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in the United States credits captive breeding programs for saving Guam rails (Hypotaenidia owstoni), black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes), California condors (Gymnogyps californianus), Przewalski’s horses (Equus ferus), scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), Partula snails, and Spix’s macaws (Cyanopsitta spixii) among others from extinction.

Occasionally, a breeding program’s ultimate objective will be to release or reintroduce animals into their original habitat or, in some cases, new ranges in the wild. For example, the Toldedo Zoo in 1998 and Detroit Zoo in 2005 began breeding federally endangered Karner Blue Butterflies for release into the wild, while a group of organizations such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Ohio State University has worked to reintroduce and establish populations of federally listed freshwater mussel species into the Ohio stream and rivers. Similarly, in 1984, the Smithsonian’s National Zoo began reintroducing zoo-born golden lion tamarins to their natural habitats into Brazil rainforests, and, by 2003, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) downlisted the species from critically endangered to endangered.

The released numbats have been fitted with radio collars, and the Department of Parks and Wildlife will track their movements and monitor females to see if they breed.

Controversy over the management of feral horses and burros has heightened with Wyoming suing the federal government and the Western Governors’ Association issuing a resolution on the topic this month.

Feral horses and burros are managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The population of feral horses on federal lands continues to increase well above appropriate management levels, along with increasing costs to manage those animals. Lack of funding coupled with a decrease in demand for adopted horses and burros caused the BLM to remove fewer horses and burros from the land in fiscal year 2014 – only 1,863 animals, compared to 4,176 last fiscal year – stirring controversy over their management.

The decreased removal of feral horses has led Wyoming to sue the federal government for failing to properly manage the feral horse population. Wyoming is currently home to 3,771 horses, more than seven times the defined appropriate management level of 475 horses. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said that the large amount of horses in the state are degrading lands and harming important wildlife habitat.

The Western Governors’ Association is also concerned that the overpopulated feral horses on federal lands are degrading the land, including grazing lands and habitat for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In their resolution, the association states that the federal government’s inability to control feral horse and burro populations is an immediate concern and argues the BLM needs to be appropriated the resources to properly manage feral horses and burros in the western U.S.

The Wildlife Society actively supports the scientific management and removal of excess feral horses and burros from western rangelands. TWS is a founding member of the National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management Coalition and regularly provides testimony to the BLM’s National Horse & Burro Advisory Board.

For more information on the ecological impact of wild horses and burros refer to TWS’s Feral Horses and Burros: Impacts of Invasive Species Fact Sheet and Position Statement.

Sources: Bureau of Land Management (December 11, 2014), E&E News PM (December 8, 2014), Greenwire (December 9, 2014), and Western Governors’ Association (December 6, 2014)

The recovery of lynx, brown bears, and grey wolves in a continent that has seen hundreds of years of development is showing that humans may not have to keep out of the path of predators and their prey.

“What we find is very good news. Carnivores are doing well in an unexpected place — Europe,” said Guillaume Chapron, an associate professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the lead author of a study released today in the journal Science. “We have twice as many (grey) wolves in Europe than in the 48 lower U.S. states.”

Chapron’s study was the result of an “exhaustive and comprehensive” study that gathered “the most up-to-date numbers” from 26 European countries and 76 authors about the distribution and range of grey wolves, brown bears, wolverines, and the Eurasian lynx. Chapron said the study was also one of the first ones to use data from nations like Bosnia, Macedonia, and other places and made use of a wide variety of techniques such as snow-tracking, camera traps, and genetic micro-captures.

The study found that the numbers of carnivores have either remained steady or greatly increased in European countries. In some cases the animals have recovered robust populations that were extinct at some point between 1950 and 1970. For example, the Eurasian lynx has recovered in countries like France, Switzerland, and other places from extinction to numbers sometimes reaching the dozens. Similarly, brown bears — little smaller in Europe than North American grizzlies — and grey wolves also face recovery from extinction or near extinction in a number of countries and huge increases in populations in others. Wolverines have increased to the order of three to five times their populations around 45 to 65 years ago in the monitored countries of Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

Wolf Canis lupus pups photographed in the front of the den in the western Poland.
Image Credit: Robert W. Mysłajek Wolf pack.
Copyright: Miha Krofel, Slovenia Eurasian lynx - Europe's largest cat.
Copyright: Miha Krofel, Slovenia Eurasian lynx - Europe's largest cat.
Copyright: Miha Krofel, Slovenia European brown bear in Dinaric mountains, Slovenia.
Copyright: Miha Krofel, Slovenia Female European brown bear in Dinaric Mountains, Slovenia.
Copyright: Miha Krofel, Slovenia Female European brown bear in Dinaric Mountains, Slovenia.
Copyright: Miha Krofel, Slovenia A female brown bear (Ursus arctos) with her cubs in the forests of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Credit: Sasa Kunovac A female brown bear (Ursus arctos) with three yearlings in Gutulia National Park in Hedmark, South East Norway.
Image Credit: Kjell Isaksen

The results of the study show that the way humans and predators share land in the European Union, which doesn’t employ the North American system of parceling off land into national parks or wildlife refuges and urban or agricultural domains, has contributed to the successful recovery. “We don’t have this concept of wilderness where the wild beasts are supposed to be out there in the mountains,” Chapron said, adding that the most abundant populations aren’t always in remote wilderness areas, as brown bears are doing well in some more populous parts of Sweden and grey wolves are doing better in some of the farmlands of Spain.

But Chapron cautioned that there are still a number of problems in Europe between human and predator interaction. “Coexistence isn’t a peace and love story,” he said. Brown bears aren’t doing well in the Pyrenees, wolves are faring badly in the Sierra Morena region of Spain and the lynx sits on the edge of extinction in the Balkans. While the coexistence model has helped improve the overall situation, according to Chapron, on a smaller scale there is no silver bullet that will lead to easy recovery of species and conservation. “Things have to be adapted to the local context,” he said. Things that have led to increased predator tolerance include trophy hunting programs and electric fences to stop livestock predation.

According to Chapron, states in the U.S. could make use of these models. “For North America there are questions about what will happen when the wolf comes back in California,” he said. But, through land-sharing programs, predators could make a comeback in some areas.

“If people wanted they could have a lot of wolves.”