Evaluating wolf translocation as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern United States
-
Published source details
Bradleye H., Pletscher D.H., Bangs E.E., Kunkel K.E., Smith D.W., Mack C.M., Meier T.J., Fontaine J.A., Niemeyer C.C. & Jimenez M.D. (2005) Evaluating wolf translocation as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern United States. Conservation Biology, 19, 1498-1508.
Published source details Bradleye H., Pletscher D.H., Bangs E.E., Kunkel K.E., Smith D.W., Mack C.M., Meier T.J., Fontaine J.A., Niemeyer C.C. & Jimenez M.D. (2005) Evaluating wolf translocation as a nonlethal method to reduce livestock conflicts in the northwestern United States. Conservation Biology, 19, 1498-1508.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link |
 |
|
|
Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Action Link |
|
-
Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict
A study in 1982–2002 in 25 temperate forest sites in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA (Bradley et al. 2005) found that some wolves Canis lupus translocated away from areas of livestock predation continued to prey on livestock, some returned to their capture location and that translocation reduced wolf survival. Out of 63 translocated individual wolves and nine wolf groups, 19 wolves preyed on livestock following release. Of 81 wolves or wolf groups, 16 returned to their capture site, from 74–316 km away. Annual survival of translocated wolves (60%) was lower than that of non-translocated, resident wolves (73%). Eighty-eight individual wolves were translocated 74–515 km in 1989–2001, in response to livestock predation (75 wolves) or pre-emptively to avoid such conflict (13 wolves). Seven translocated wolves were moved twice and five were moved three times. Translocated wolves were radio-collared, and were monitored to the end of 2002. Survival data were also compiled over 1982–2002 from 399 non-translocated, resident wolves in the same general area.
(Summarised by: Abby Machernis)
-
Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals
A study in 1989–2002 in 25 temperate forest sites in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA (Bradley et al. 2005) found that holding translocated wolves Canis lupus in pens at the release site before release (soft release) increased the chance of wolves not returning to their capture site relative to direct (hard) release. A lower proportion of soft-released wolves returned to their capture site (8%) than of hard-released wolves (30%). Soft-releases entailed confinement at release sites for ≥28 days after capture. Hard-releases were those occurring ≤7 days following capture. Eighty-eight wolves were translocated 74–515 km in 1989–2001 in response to livestock predation (75 wolves) or pre-emptively to avoid such conflict (13 wolves). Translocated wolves were radio-collared, and were monitored through to the end of 2002.
(Summarised by: Abby Machernis )
)_2023.JPG)
