Human-Wildlife Interactions

Beyond our instinctive fear to carnivores, and the anger caused by the loss of assets (e.g. cattle depredation), human-wildlife conflict is a complex scenario result of cultural, economic and political views on the management of natural resources, and the boundaries of private property. The definition of human-wildlife conflict will be discussed, and general approaches will be provided. In this section we will explore the theoretical arguments that try to explain which factors model the conflict, and the challenge of mitigating or preventing a negative outcome of human and wildlife interactions. Through the topic presentation we will focus on large-carnivores and humans negative interactions, including human-human conflicts caused by the different views on wildlife management.

How humans interact with wildlife?

Throughout human history we have always interacted with and relied on biodiversity. Some species were of particular interest to us and we started a domestication process to adapt them to our renewing needs. The conspicuous animal species we could not domesticate were called wildlife. Wildlife is used and managed for our best interests in many contexts: for recreation, hunting (fishing, sport hunting, poaching, subsistence), appreciation and inspiration. From a human perspective, such interactions range across a continuum from positive to negative (Riley et al. 2002).

Wildlife also provides important ecosystem services that are vital for the maintenance and integrity of ecosystems, which in turn provide the means for humanity´s subsistence. Healthy resilient ecosystems rely on large carnivores to control the population numbers of other species, including herbivores and lesser carnivores. The acknowledgement of large carnivore´s importance as "key species" of ecosystems have created a growing interest to understand their role, their behaviour and ecology.

Large carnivores, however, face constant threats to their populations due to a constant and unsustainable culling. In the early 20th century some species were driven to extinction (e.g. the Tasmanian wolf, Thylacinus cynocephalus) or near to extinction (e.g. the Mexican grey wolf, Canis lupus baileyi) because the role of large carnivores in ecosystem was unknown and rather were recognised as "pests" that decimated livestock. Although damage to domestic animals and crops is performed by a wide diversity of living organisms such as bacteria, fungi, algae, plants, animals: invertebrates and vertebrates (e.g. deer, elephants, large seed-eating bird flocks, haematophagous bats, seals), attention is centred on animals that not only damage our assets but also can threaten our lives. Thus a man-and-cattle-eating tiger is more feared and persecuted than a cattle-killing parasite.

Jim Corbett, a conservation leader in the early 20th Century, poses with a man-eating leopard. He has a record of killing 19 tigers and 14 leopards reported as man-eaters. He was also a pioneer conservationist and played a key role in the establishment of present Jim Corbett National Park. He remained an active member of many wildlife preservation organizations and helped in conserving large carnivores and wildlife in India.

Human-Wildlife Conflict or Negative Interactions with Wildlife?

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature World Parks Congress (Madden 2004) as “...when the needs and behaviour of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals, threaten or kill people”.

The quantifiable impacts of human–wildlife conﬂict, i.e. injury and fatality, crop and livestock loss, are its best-documented consequences, and these impacts often trigger immediate retaliatory actions against wildlife (Barua, Bhagwat & Jadhav 2013). There are other impacts of conflict that are more difficult to measure, including the opportunity costs to farmers and rangers associated with guarding crops or livestock, diminished psycho-social wellbeing, disruption of livelihoods, and food insecurity (Woodroffe, Thirgood & Rabinowitz 2005; Dickman, Macdonald & Macdonald 2011, Linnell et al 2010, Gittleman et al 2001, Hoare 2012, Barua, Bhagwat & Jadhav 2013). Human–wildlife interactions vary on a continuum from positive to negative, in intensity from minor to severe, and in frequency from rare to common (Soulsbury & White 2015,). Lethal and non-lethal attacks on people are now relatively infrequent but they often lead to strong public reactions against the predator that caused them(Woodroffe, Thirgood & Rabinowitz, 2005).

There also are hidden impacts of human–wildlife conﬂict, costs characterized as uncompensated, temporally delayed, psychological or social in nature (Ogra, 2008). Hidden impacts include diminished states of psycho-social wellbeing resulting from injury or fatality, disruption of family livelihoods and food security. These impacts can be temporally delayed, their effects becoming pronounced well after the occurrence of a conﬂict event (Barua, Bhagwat & Jadhav 2013). The degree and severity of psycho-social effects of conﬂict may be shaped by a range of precedent factors that compound vulnerability for many social groups, such as poverty, poor access to resources and social capital, ethnic and political marginalization. (Barua, Bhagwat & Jadhav 2013).

The reintroduction of the endangered Mexican grey wolf in the United States has been challenged by anti-wolf signs by the side of the highway near the towns of Glenwood and Reserve in Catron County, New Mexico, known by the media as a a hotbed of anti-government sentiment. (Photos: Laura Paskus (top) and Pierson Hill (bottom)).

Persistent human–wildlife conﬂicts may also reduce community support for long-term species conservation (Barua et al.,2010). Acknowledging the impacts of human–wildlife conﬂict and minimizing them is thus vital for ensuring both wildlife conservation and human wellbeing (Barua, Bhagwat & Jadhav 2013). Because the causes of conﬂict are often complex and deep-seated, a broader approach is needed to ameliorate it fully in the long term (Dickman, 2010). To address this complexity a focus on the human dimensions of wildlife conﬂicts is increasingly being acknowledged as critical (Decker et al., 2012; Redpath et al., 2013; Manfredo, 2015).

The complexity increases because individuals differ widely in their attitudes and tolerance towards wildlife (Kansky et al., 2014). For example, some stakeholders remove wildlife species despite not encountering anyproblems, while others with problems will not remove species (Marker et al., 2003). Some stakeholders will implement mitigation measures to prevent or reduce damage, while others will not (Maclennan et al., 2009) and some farmers will forgo different numbers of livestock to different species of wildlife (Romanach et al., 2007).

To better understand human wildlife conﬂicts, they can be framed as occurring within Social Ecological Systems (SES), where interactions between ecosystems, biodiversity and people take place (Folk et al., 2004). Framing HWC within SES acknowledges HWC as a complex conservation problem that requires multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches (Game et al., 2014). Kansky et al (2016) deﬁne Human wildlife conﬂicts (HWC) as a type of biodiversity conﬂict (Bennett et al., 2001) consisting of two components:

a) Human conflicts with wildlife: impacts that deal with direct interactions between humans and wildlife species (Young et al., 2010)

b) Conﬂicts between humans themselves over how to manage the impacts between humans and wildlife.

A lion (Panthera leo) in Namibia feeds on a cow carcass. Cattle depredation incidents are known to increase intolerance and retaliatory actions against carnivores. Dr. Niki Rust has led research in this country to identify the human causes behind the conflict. She found that the farms that reported no issues with carnivores tended to be well-managed with happy, motivated workers. Her findings agree with many other researchers suggesting that human´s conflict with wildlife is influenced by political, economic, historical and social drivers. (Photo by Dr. Niki Rust, reproduced with permission).

Despite the wide acceptance of "human-wildlife conflicts" as a way to refer to the negative interactions between wildlife and people, this term has been challenged by experts working in human-wildlife interactions in a conservation context. Some arguments given are that the term human-wildlife conflict (HWC) suggests a ‘conscious antagonism between wildlife and humans’ , implying that wildlife acts consciously against humans, equating animals and people in the role of combatants, even though they cannot represent themselves in the political sphere against people (Raik et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2010).

The use of this term blames wildlife for every encounter or incident, suggesting that wildlife assert their interests to undermine human goals (Woodroffe et al. 2005). This promotes antagonism towards wildlife that can exacerbate the problem, hinder resolution and can result in people directing their anger, frustration on wildlife with potentially adverse conservation outcomes for endangered species (Peterson et al. 2002; Brook et al. 2003; Redpath et al. 2015). Human conflicts are often projected onto wildlife and may be a symbolic vehicle for expression of social conflict between people at the local, national and international levels, such as between conservation movements and developers or between people and protected area management termed ‘human-state conflict’ (Knight 2013).

The political image of a species can affect the acceptance or resistance towards conservation. Understanding the human dimension of "conflicts with wildlife" is essential to address and prevent undesired outcomes. (Photo source: Google).

Citing this blog?

Please use the following reference (adapt to your format needs, include the link):

Neri-Barrios, Ximena. 2018. Human-Wildlife Interactions, in Large-Carnivores and Humans blog.

And refer to the original works,cited below.

Cited Literature:

Barua, M., Tamuly, J., Ahmed, R.A., 2010. Mutiny or clear sailing? Examining the role of the asian elephant as a ﬂagship species. Human Dimensions Wildl. 15, 145– 160.

Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157:309–16

Bennett,E.,Neiland,A.,Anang,E.,Bannerman,P.,Rahman,A.A.,Huq,S.,Bhuiya,S.,Day,M., Fulford-Gardiner, M., Clerveaux, W., 2001. Towards a better under-standing of conﬂict management in tropical ﬁsheries: evidence from Ghana, Bangladesh and the Caribbean. Mar. Policy 25, 365–376.

Brook, A., M. Zint & R. De Young (2003). Landowners’ responses to an endangered species act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 1638–1649

Dickman,A.J., 2010.Complexities of conﬂict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conﬂict. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466.

Decker, D.J., Riley, S.J., Siemer, W.F., 2012. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW. 2011. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human-carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108:13937–44

Folk, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 557–558.

Game, E.T., Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., McDonald-Madden, E., 2014. Conservation in a wicked complex world: Challenges and solutions. Conserv. Lett. 7, 271–277.

Gittleman JL, Funk SL, Macdonald DW, Wayne RK, eds. 2001. Carnivore Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Hoare R. 2012. Lessons from 15 years of human elephant conflict mitigation: management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa. Pachyderm 51:60–74

Kansky, R., Kidd, M., Knight, A.T., 2014. A meta-analysis of attitudes towards damage – causing mammalian wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 28, 924–938.

Knight, J. (2013). Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective. Routledge

Linnell JDC, Rondeau D, Reed DH, Williams R, Altwegg R, et al. 2010. Confronting the costs and conflicts associated with biodiversity. Anim. Conserv. 13:429–31

Maclennan, S.D.,Groom,R.J.,Macdonald, D.W.,Frank, L.G.,2009.Evaluationofacompensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2419–2427.

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 247–257

Manfredo, M.J., 2015. Essays on human–wildlife conﬂict 10 years after the Durban World Parks Congress: an introduction. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 20, 285–288.

Marker, L., Mills, M.G.L., Macdonald, D.W., 2003. Factors inﬂuencing perceptions of conﬂict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1290–1298.

Ogra, M.V., 2008. Human–wildlife conﬂict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39, 1408–1422.

Peterson, M.N., T.R. Peterson, M.J. Peterson, R.R. Lopez & N.J. Silvy (2002). Cultural conflict and the endangered Florida Key Deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 947–968

Peterson, M.N., J.L. Birckhead, K. Leong, M.J. Peterson & T.R. Peterson (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3: 74–82

Raik, D.B., Wilson A.L., Decker D.J. (2008) Power in natural resources management: an application of theory. Soc Nat Res 21, 729–739.

Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R.A., Linnell, J.D.C., Watt, A., Gutierrez, R.J., 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conﬂicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 100–109.

Redpath, S.M., S. Bhatia, & J. Young (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. Oryx 49: 222–225

Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F. Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:585-593.

Romanach, S.S., Lindsey, P.A., Woodroffe, R., 2007. Determinants of attitudes towards predators in central Kenya and suggestions for increasing tolerance in livestock dominated landscapes. Oryx 41, 185–195.

Soulsbury CD, White PCL. 2015. Human-wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. In Wildlife Research: Interactions Between Humans and Wildlife in Urban Areas, ed. A Taylor, P White, pp. 541–53. Australia: CSIRO

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A, eds. 2005. People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressLandmark edited volume covering human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.

Young, J.C., Marzano, M., White, R.M., McCracken, D.I., Redpath, S.M., Carss, D.N., Quine, C.P., Watt, A.D., 2010. The emergence of biodiversity conﬂicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers.Conserv.19,3973–3990.