Human/Wildlife conflict is an issue that seems to be arising more and more in Conservation Sciences. It basically boils down to the issue that certain wildlife(not just predators mind you) cause destruction in human settled areas and the humans in return seek justice/retaliate etc.
The main issue that should be identified here is the fact that wildlife isn't doing anything it's not suppose to. Wolves will kill livestock, elephants will attack something that scares them and dolphins will steal fish from a net. These are things you can expect from nature. So the essential of the conflicts boils down to conservations vs stakeholders instead of the animals.
So really one of the current problems faced in one of these conflicts is how to best solve them in order for it to be a win win situation. If you make it illegal to retaliate, usually you need to crack down on those laws and as it's common with wildlife crimes, it's hard to do. One of the sayings that anti-wolf people use is "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up". Essentially meaning kill the wolf(and endangered species), hide the body and just don't tell anyone about it. This is a sentiment that is widely shared with many people across the globe. Especially those who live in poverty areas where the difference between selling 10 livestock or 15 could be the difference between starving or eating.
So really who can blame them? A farmer in India that loses livestock to predators has a right to be angry at the animal as well as the conservationists.
So let's focus on the win-win situation. How would we make it work? First of all a compensation scheme or an insurance scheme always seem to be a good idea. Making sure that people get their money from the death of a livestock seems to reduce the anger. However for most people it's not enough. A cow may be worth $500 in paper but to a farmer it may be worth more. Also the stress of being predated on causes cows to miscarriage, less yield etc. So monetary compensation shouldn't be enough.
One of my favorite ideas is the predator friendly meat. Several ranchers in the U.S.A have set up a co-op of farms that essentially ensure that no predators are harmed for their products.That makes sure that wolves, coyotes, raptors and other carnivores are not killed in case of depredation or moved. It's a great idea that ensures that consumers can support the cause if they wish.
Another one is a model from the above. Introducing products produced from predator friendly areas is a great way to provide an extra source of impact. For example snow leopard products help locals associate snow leopards with monetary benefits and provide them with an extra source of income that could help onset the costs of having snow leopards around.
Each case is unique and each one has it's own solution. From text messages to save people from being attacked by elephants to encouraging guarding dogs each site can have a win win situation if they are willing to reach a common ground. And in order to promote coexistence we really should.
So really one of the current problems faced in one of these conflicts is how to best solve them in order for it to be a win win situation. If you make it illegal to retaliate, usually you need to crack down on those laws and as it's common with wildlife crimes, it's hard to do. One of the sayings that anti-wolf people use is "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up". Essentially meaning kill the wolf(and endangered species), hide the body and just don't tell anyone about it. This is a sentiment that is widely shared with many people across the globe. Especially those who live in poverty areas where the difference between selling 10 livestock or 15 could be the difference between starving or eating.
So really who can blame them? A farmer in India that loses livestock to predators has a right to be angry at the animal as well as the conservationists.
So let's focus on the win-win situation. How would we make it work? First of all a compensation scheme or an insurance scheme always seem to be a good idea. Making sure that people get their money from the death of a livestock seems to reduce the anger. However for most people it's not enough. A cow may be worth $500 in paper but to a farmer it may be worth more. Also the stress of being predated on causes cows to miscarriage, less yield etc. So monetary compensation shouldn't be enough.
One of my favorite ideas is the predator friendly meat. Several ranchers in the U.S.A have set up a co-op of farms that essentially ensure that no predators are harmed for their products.That makes sure that wolves, coyotes, raptors and other carnivores are not killed in case of depredation or moved. It's a great idea that ensures that consumers can support the cause if they wish.
Another one is a model from the above. Introducing products produced from predator friendly areas is a great way to provide an extra source of impact. For example snow leopard products help locals associate snow leopards with monetary benefits and provide them with an extra source of income that could help onset the costs of having snow leopards around.
Each case is unique and each one has it's own solution. From text messages to save people from being attacked by elephants to encouraging guarding dogs each site can have a win win situation if they are willing to reach a common ground. And in order to promote coexistence we really should.
