Trenches reduce crop foraging by elephants: Lessons from Kibale National Park, Uganda for elephant conservation in densely settled rural landscapes.

Crop loss to wildlife, particularly elephants, threatens livelihoods and support for conservation around many protected areas in Africa and Asia. Low-cost elephant barriers have been successfully deployed in savannas but seldom tested around isolated forest parks where the stakes are high for local farmers and isolated elephant populations. We measured the effectiveness of a series of ≥3 m deep trenches dug by farmers neighboring Kibale National Park, Uganda. We monitored trench quality and crop loss to elephants weekly for a year across 47 transects in four park-adjacent communities, and conducted controlled, before-and-after comparisons of verified damage. Elephants damaged or destroyed >4 ha of crops during 48 independent foraging events, the majority <220m from the forest boundary. The frequency of damage varied significantly between and within communities. The majority of trenches were not breached by elephants but five suffered ≥4 breaches. Elephant-breached trenches and their neighboring trenches were lower quality than those not breached in the same week (Wilcoxon test: p<0.001). Trenches were also more likely to be breached where people had planted more crops favored by elephants (Wilcoxon test: p = 0.014). Thus, trench quality and the draw of palatable crops both appeared to influence elephant damage. Although trenches may deter elephants, challenges include heavy labor and difficulties of digging in rocky and swampy areas. Trenches alone will not prevent conflict but this strategy holds promise for hot-spots of conflict at forest edges. Given the stakes for farmers and biodiversity, we call for systematic assessment of crop losses and offer recommendations on monitoring and analysis. Such data will allow for stronger inference about effectiveness before investment of effort and resources in interventions.

Low-stress livestock handling protects cattle in a five-predator habitat.

Given the ecological importance of top predators, societies are turning to non-lethal methods for coexistence. Coexistence is challenging when livestock graze within wild predator habitats. We report a randomized, controlled experiment to evaluate low-stress livestock handling (L-SLH), a form of range riding, to deter grizzly (brown) bears, gray wolves, cougars, black bears, and coyotes in Southwestern Alberta. The treatment condition was supervision by two newly hired and trained range riders and an experienced L-SLH-practicing range rider. This treatment was compared against a baseline pseudo-control condition of the experienced range rider working alone. Cattle experienced zero injuries or deaths in either condition. We infer that inexperienced range riders trained and supervised by an experienced rider did not raise or lower the risk to cattle. Also, predators did not shift to the cattle herds protected by fewer range riders. We found a correlation suggesting grizzly bears avoided herds visited more frequently by range riders practicing L-SLH. More research is required to compare different forms of range riding. However, pending experimental evaluation of other designs, we recommend use of L-SLH. We discuss the cobenefits of this husbandry method.

Evaluating how management policies affect red wolf mortality and disappearance.

Poaching is the major cause of death for large carnivores in several regions, contributing to their global endangerment. The traditional hypothesis used in wildlife management (killing for tolerance) suggests reducing protections for a species will decrease poaching. However, recent studies suggest reducing protections will instead increase poaching (facilitated illegal killing) and its concealment (facilitated cryptic poaching). Here, we build survival and competing risk models for mortality and disappearances of adult collared red wolves (Canis rufus) released in North Carolina, USA from 1987 to 2020 (n = 526). We evaluated how changes in federal and state policies protecting red wolves influenced the hazard and incidence of mortality and disappearance. We observed substantial increases in the hazard and incidence of red wolf reported poaching, and smaller increases in disappearances, during periods of reduced federal and state protections (including liberalizing hunting of coyotes, C. latrans); white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and American black bear (Ursus americanus) hunting seasons; and management phases. Observed increases in hazard (85-256%) and incidence of reported poaching (56-243%) support the 'facilitated illegal killing' hypothesis. We suggest improving protective policies intended to conserve endangered species generally and large carnivores in particular, to mitigate environmental crimes and generally improve the protection of wild animals.

Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year.

When humanity confronts the risk of extinction of species, many people invoke precautions, especially in the face of uncertainty. Although precautionary approaches are value judgments, the optimal design and effect of precautions or lack thereof are scientific questions. We investigated Wisconsin gray wolves Canis lupus facing a second wolf-hunt in November 2021 and use three legal thresholds as the societal value judgments about precautions: (1) the 1999 population goal, 350 wolves, (2) the threshold for statutory listing under the state threatened and endangered species act, 250 wolves; and (3) state extirpation <2 wolves. This allows us to explore the quantitative relationship between precaution and uncertainty. Working from estimates of the size wolf population in April 2021 and reproduction to November, we constructed a simple linear model with uninformative priors for the period April 2021-April 2022 including an uncertain wolf-hunt in November 2021. Our first result is that the state government under-counted wolf deaths in the year preceding both wolf-hunts. We recommend better scientific analysis be used when setting wolf-hunt quotas. We find official recommendations for a quota for the November 2021 wolf-hunt risk undesirable outcomes. Even a quota of zero has a 13% chance of crossing threshold 1. Therefore, a zero death toll would be precautionary. Proponents for high quotas bear the burden of proof that their estimates are accurate, precise, and reproducible. We discuss why our approach is transferable to non-wolves. We show how scientists have the tools and concepts for quantifying and explaining the probabilities of crossing thresholds set by laws or other social norms. We recommend that scientists grapple with data gaps by explaining what the uncertainty means for policy and the public including the consequences of being wrong.

Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting.

Poaching is the main cause of mortality for many large carnivores, and mitigating it is imperative for the persistence of their populations. For Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus), periods of increased risk in overall mortality and poaching seem to overlap temporally with legal hunting seasons for other large mammals (hunting wolves was prohibited). We analyzed monitoring data from adult, collared wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979-2012, n = 495) using a competing-risk approach to test explicitly if seasons during which it was legal to train hunting hounds (hounding) or hunt other large mammals (hunting) affected wolves' hazard of cause-specific mortality and disappearance. We found increases in hazard for disappearances and documented ('reported') poaching during seasons with hunting, hounding or snow cover relative to a season without these factors. The 'reported poached' hazard increased > 650% during seasons with hunting and snow cover, which may be due to a seasonal surge in numbers of potential poachers or to some poachers augmenting their activities. Snow cover was a major environmental factor contributing to poaching, presumably through increased detection of wolves. Our study suggests poaching is by far the highest mortality hazard for wolves and reinforces the need for protections and policies targeting poaching of protected populations.

Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management.

Predators and their protection are controversial worldwide. Gray wolves, Canis lupus, lost U.S. federal protection (delisting) and the State of Wisconsin began lethal management first among all states and tribes that regained authority over wolves. Here we evaluated the initial success of reaching the state's explicit objective, "…to allow for a sustainable harvest that neither increases nor decreases the state's wolf population…" We used official state figures for hunter-killed wolves, population estimates from April 2017-2020, and the latest peer-reviewed model of individual wolf survival to estimate additional deaths resulting from federal delisting. More than half of the additional deaths were predicted to be cryptic poaching under the assumption that this period resembled past periods of liberalized wolf-killing in Wisconsin. We used a precautionary approach to construct three conservative scenarios to predict the current status of this wolf population and a minimum estimate of population decline since April 2020. From our scenarios that vary in growth rates and additional mortality estimates, we expect a maximum of 695-751 wolves to be alive in Wisconsin by 15 April 2021, a minimum 27-33% decline in the preceding 12 months. This contradicts the state expectation of no change in the population size. We draw a conclusion about the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms under state control of wolves and discuss the particular governance conditions met in Wisconsin. We recommend greater rigor and independent review of the science used by agencies to plan wolf hunting quotas and methods. We recommend clearer division of duties between state wildlife agencies, legislatures, and courts. We recommend federal governments reconsider the practice of sudden deregulation of wolf management and instead recommend they consider protecting predators as non-game or transition more slowly to subnational authority, to avoid the need for emergency relisting.

Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves.

Despite illegal killing (poaching) being the major cause of death among large carnivores globally, little is known about the effect of implementing lethal management policies on poaching. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed in the literature: implementing lethal management may decrease poaching incidence (killing for tolerance) or increase it (facilitated illegal killing). Here, we report a test of the two opposed hypotheses that poaching (reported and unreported) of Mexican grey wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) in Arizona and New Mexico, USA, responded to changes in policy that reduced protections to allow more wolf-killing. We employ advanced biostatistical survival and competing risk methods to data on individual resightings, mortality and disappearances of collared Mexican wolves, supplemented with Bayes factors to assess the strength of evidence. We find inconclusive evidence for any decreases in reported poaching. We also find strong evidence that Mexican wolves were 121% more likely to disappear during periods of reduced protections than during periods of stricter protections, with only slight changes in legal removals by the agency. Therefore, we find strong support for the 'facilitated illegal killing' hypothesis and none for the 'killing for tolerance' hypothesis. We provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of US policy on environmental crimes, endangered species and protections for wild animals. Our results have implications beyond the USA or wolves because the results suggest transformations of decades-old management interventions against human-caused mortality among wild animals subject to high rates of poaching.

Estimating poaching risk for the critically endangered wild red wolf (Canis rufus).

The reintroduced red wolf (Canis rufus) population in northeastern North Carolina declined to 7 known wolves by October 2020, the majority of which is due to poaching (illegal killing), the major component of verified anthropogenic mortality in this and many other carnivore populations. Poaching is still not well understood and is often underestimated, partly as a result of cryptic poaching, when poachers conceal evidence. Cryptic poaching inhibits our understanding of the causes and consequences of anthropogenic mortality, which is important to conservation as it can inform us about future population patterns within changing political and human landscapes. We estimate risk for marked adult red wolves of 5 causes of death (COD: legal, nonhuman, unknown, vehicle and poached) and disappearance, describe variation in COD in relation to hunting season, and compare time to disappearance or death. We include unknown fates in our risk estimates. We found that anthropogenic COD accounted for 0.78-0.85 of 508 marked animals, including poaching and cryptic poaching, which we estimated at 0.51-0.64. Risk of poaching and disappearance was significantly higher during hunting season. Mean time from collaring until nonhuman COD averaged 376 days longer than time until poached and 642 days longer than time until disappearance. Our estimates of risk differed from prior published estimates, as expected by accounting for unknown fates explicitly. We quantify the effects on risk for three scenarios for unknown fates, which span conservative to most likely COD. Implementing proven practices that prevent poaching or hasten successful reintroduction may reverse the decline to extinction in the wild of this critically endangered population. Our findings add to a growing literature on endangered species protections and enhancing the science used to measure poaching worldwide.

Wolf Delisting Challenges Demonstrate Need for an Improved Framework for Conserving Intraspecific Variation under the Endangered Species Act.

Recent advances in genomics have increased our understanding of geographic patterns of intraspecific variation and the importance of this variation in enhancing species' potential to adapt to novel threats. However, as part of an effort to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the US government has proposed the removal of the gray wolf from the list of protected species on the basis of a claim that the statute permits a species to be declared recovered given the existence of a single presently secure population. We rebut this interpretation and propose a framework for the conservation of adaptive potential that builds on current agency practice in delineating subspecific recovery units and reconciles the definition of significance in the statute's "distinct population segment" and "significant portion of range" clauses. Such a coordinated policy would enhance the ESA's effectiveness in stemming loss of biodiversity in the face of climate change and other factors altering Earth's ecosystems.

Large carnivore hunting and the social license to hunt.

The social license to operate framework considers how society grants or withholds informal permission for resource extractors to exploit publicly owned resources. We developed a modified model, which we refer to as the social license to hunt (SLH). In it we similarly consider hunters as operators, given that wildlife are legally considered public resources in North America and Europe. We applied the SLH model to examine the controversial hunting of large carnivores, which are frequently killed for trophies. Killing for trophies is widespread, but undertaken by a minority of hunters, and can pose threats to the SLH for trophy-seeking carnivore hunters and potentially beyond. Societal opposition to large carnivore hunting relates not only to conservation concerns but also to misalignment between killing for trophies and dominant public values and attitudes concerning the treatment of animals. We summarized cases related to the killing of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), wolves (Canis lupus), and other large carnivores in Canada, the United States, and Europe to illustrate how opposition to large carnivore hunting, now expressed primarily on social media, can exert rapid and significant pressure on policy makers and politicians. Evidence of the potential for transformative change to wildlife management and conservation includes proposed and realized changes to legislation, business practice, and wildlife policy, including the banning of some large carnivore hunts. Given that policy is ultimately shaped by societal values and attitudes, research gaps include developing increased insight into public support of various hunting policies beyond that derived from monitoring of social media and public polling. Informed by increased evidence, the SLH model can provide a conceptual foundation for predicting the likelihood of transient versus enduring changes to wildlife conservation policy and practice for a wide variety of taxa and contexts.

Cacería de Grandes Carnívoros y la Licencia Social para Cazar Resumen El marco de trabajo de la licencia social para operar considera cómo la sociedad otorga o restringe permisos informales para que los extractores de recursos puedan explotar los recursos públicos. Desarrollamos un modelo modificado, al cual nos referimos como la licencia social para cazar (LSC). En este modelo consideramos a los cazadores como símiles de los operadores puesto que en América del Norte y en Europa a la fauna se le considera legalmente como recurso público. Aplicamos el modelo de la LSC en un análisis de la cacería controversial de grandes carnívoros, a los cuales con frecuencia se les caza para convertirlos en trofeos. La cacería para trofeos es común pero sólo la realiza una minoría de los cazadores y puede presentar una amenaza para la LSC para los cazadores que cazan carnívoros para trofeos e incluso para otros tipos de cazadores. La oposición social a la cacería de grandes carnívoros se relaciona no sólo con el interés de conservación sino también con la discordancia entre la caza para trofeos y las actitudes y valores públicos dominantes con respecto al trato hacia los animales. Resumimos algunos casos relacionados con la muerte de osos pardos (Ursus arctos), lobos (Canis lupus) y otros grandes carnívoros en Canadá, los Estados Unidos y Europa para mostrar cómo la oposición a la cacería de grandes carnívoros, hoy en día expresada principalmente en las redes sociales, puede ejercer una presión rápida y significativa sobre los políticos y los formuladores de políticas. La evidencia de un potencial de cambio transformador en el manejo y conservación de fauna incluye los cambios propuestos y realizados a la legislación, la práctica comercial y las políticas para la fauna, incluyendo la prohibición de la caza de algunos grandes carnívoros. Ya que las políticas están finalmente moldeadas por las actitudes y los valores sociales, las lagunas en la investigación incluyen el desarrollo de un conocimiento mejorado del respaldo público para varias políticas de cacería más allá del conocimiento derivado del monitoreo de las redes sociales y las encuestas públicas. Si se informa con mucha más evidencia, el modelo de la LSC puede proporcionar una base conceptual para predecir la probabilidad de los cambios transitorios versus los duraderos en las políticas y las prácticas de conservación de fauna para una gama amplia de taxones y contextos.

Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA.

Although poaching (illegal killing) is an important cause of death for large carnivores globally, the effect of lethal management policies on poaching is unknown for many populations. Two opposing hypotheses have been proposed: liberalizing killing may decrease poaching incidence ('tolerance hunting') or increase it ('facilitated poaching'). For gray wolves in Wisconsin, USA, we evaluated how five causes of death and disappearances of monitored, adult wolves were influenced by policy changes. We found slight decreases in reported wolf poaching hazard and incidence during six liberalized killing periods, but that was outweighed by larger increases in hazard and incidence of disappearance. Although the observed increase in the hazard of disappearance cannot be definitively shown to have been caused by an increase in cryptic poaching, we discuss two additional independent lines of evidence making this the most likely explanation for changing incidence among n = 513 wolves' deaths or disappearances during 12 replicated changes in policy. Support for the facilitated poaching hypothesis suggests the increase (11-34%) in disappearances reflects that poachers killed more wolves and concealed more evidence when the government relaxed protections for endangered wolves. We propose a refinement of the hypothesis of 'facilitated poaching' that narrows the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms underlying wolf-killing.

Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence.

Recent extinctions often resulted from humans retaliating against wildlife that threatened people's interests or were perceived to threaten current or future interests. Today's subfield of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) grew out of an original anthropocentric concern with such real or perceived threats and then, starting in the mid-1990s, with protecting valued species from people. Recent work in ethics and law has shifted priorities toward coexistence between people and wild animals. To spur scientific progress and more effective practice, we examined 4 widespread assumptions about HWCC that need to be tested rigorously: scientists are neutral and objective about HWCC; current participatory, consensus-based decisions provide just and fair means to overcome challenges in HWCC; wildlife threats to human interests are getting worse; and wildlife damage to human interests is additive to other sources of damage. The first 2 assumptions are clearly testable, but if they are entangled can become a wicked problem and may need debunking as myths if they cannot be disentangled. Some assumptions have seldom or never been tested and those that have been tested appear dubious, yet the use of the assumptions continues in the practice and scholarship of HWCC. We call for tests of assumptions and debunking of myths in the scholarship of HWCC. Adherence to the principles of scientific integrity and application of standards of evidence can help advance our call. We also call for practitioners and interest groups to improve the constitutive process prior to decision making about wildlife. We predict these steps will hasten scientific progress toward evidence-based interventions and improve the fairness, ethics, and legality of coexistence strategies.

Mitos y Suposiciones sobre el Conflicto y la Coexistencia entre el Humano y la Fauna Resumen Casi todas las extinciones recientes han resultado de las represalias que los humanos han realizado en contra de la fauna que amenaza o que ha sido percibida como una amenaza para intereses humanos actuales o futuros. Hoy en día, la disciplina de conflicto y coexistencia humano - fauna (HWCC, en inglés), surgió de la original preocupación antropocéntrica por las amenazas reales o percibidas y después, a partir de mediados de la década de 1990, por la preocupación de proteger a las especies valoradas por el los humanos. Trabajos recientes de ética y leyes han modificado sus prioridades hacia la coexistencia entre las personas y la fauna silvestre. Para estimular el progreso científico y una práctica más efectiva, examinamos cuatro suposiciones generalizadas sobre el HWCC que necesitan ser evaluadas rigurosamente: los científicos son neutrales y objetivos con el HWCC; las decisiones participativas actuales basadas en consensos proporcionan medios justos y razonables para sobreponerse a los retos del HWCC; las amenazas de la fauna hacia los intereses humanos cada vez son peores; y el daño causado por la fauna a los intereses humanos es aditivo a otras fuentes de daño. Las primeras dos suposiciones son claramente evaluables, pero si se entrelazan, pueden convertirse en un serio problema y necesitarían ser desacreditadas como mitos si no se pueden desenlazar. Algunas suposiciones nunca o rara vez han sido evaluadas y aquellas que sí lo han sido parecen ser dudosas. A pesar de esto, el uso de las suposiciones continua en la práctica y en la academia del HWCC. La adhesión a los principios de integridad científica y la aplicación de estándares de evidencia pueden ayudar a promover nuestra petición. También hacemos un llamado a los practicantes y a los grupos de interés para que mejoren el proceso constitutivo previo a la toma de decisiones sobre la fauna. Pronosticamos que estos pasos a seguir apresurarán el progreso científico hacia intervenciones basadas en evidencia y mejorarán la imparcialidad, ética y legalidad de las estrategias de coexistencia.

Correction: Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189729.].

Working constructively toward an improved North American approach to wildlife management.

Mawdsley et al. (2018) respond disapprovingly to our 2018 review of 667 wildlife management systems across Canada and the United States, which found that many of these systems lacked the scientific hallmarks of clear objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. Although we strongly agree with several of Mawdsley et al.'s points about the role of science in management, their response suggests confusion about three elements of our approach that we clarify herein: (i) the selection of hallmarks, (ii) the role of science in wildlife management, and (iii) our engagement with wildlife agencies. We contend that both critics and defenders of the current approach to wildlife management in Canada and the United States similarly desire rigorous management that achieves social and ecological benefits. Our original study-which used a clear approach to define hallmarks of science-based management, employed a reasonable set of indicator criteria to test for them, and was based on data available to the general public on whose behalf management is conducted-found evidence that the current approach falls short. However, it also provided a framework for addressing shortcomings moving forward. We suggest that advancing discussion on the operational role of science in management, including clarifying what "science-based management" actually means, could curtail practitioners and critics of the status quo talking over each other's heads and encourage all parties to work constructively to improve the governance of wildlife at a continental scale.

Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection.

Carnivore predation on livestock often leads people to retaliate. Persecution by humans has contributed strongly to global endangerment of carnivores. Preventing livestock losses would help to achieve three goals common to many human societies: preserve nature, protect animal welfare, and safeguard human livelihoods. Between 2016 and 2018, four independent reviews evaluated >40 years of research on lethal and nonlethal interventions for reducing predation on livestock. From 114 studies, we find a striking conclusion: scarce quantitative comparisons of interventions and scarce comparisons against experimental controls preclude strong inference about the effectiveness of methods. For wise investment of public resources in protecting livestock and carnivores, evidence of effectiveness should be a prerequisite to policy making or large-scale funding of any method or, at a minimum, should be measured during implementation. An appropriate evidence base is needed, and we recommend a coalition of scientists and managers be formed to establish and encourage use of consistent standards in future experimental evaluations.

Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management.

Resource management agencies commonly defend controversial policy by claiming adherence to science-based approaches. For example, proponents and practitioners of the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation," which guides hunting policy across much of the United States and Canada, assert that science plays a central role in shaping policy. However, what that means is rarely defined. We propose a framework that identifies four fundamental hallmarks of science relevant to natural resource management (measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review) and test for their presence in hunt management plans created by 62 U.S. state and Canadian provincial and territorial agencies across 667 management systems (species-jurisdictions). We found that most (60%) systems contained fewer than half of the indicator criteria assessed, with more criteria detected in systems that were peer-reviewed, that pertained to "big game," and in jurisdictions at increasing latitudes. These results raise doubt about the purported scientific basis of hunt management across the United States and Canada. Our framework provides guidance for adopting a science-based approach to safeguard not only wildlife but also agencies from potential social, legal, and political conflict.

Author Correction: Intergenerational equity can help to prevent climate change and extinction.

The original Article mistakenly coded the constitutional rights of Australia as containing a governmental duty to protect the environment (blue in the figures); this has been corrected to containing no explicit mention of environmental protection (orange in the figures). The original Article also neglected to code the constitutional rights of the Cayman Islands (no data; yellow in the figures); this has been corrected to containing a governmental duty to protect the environment (blue in the figures).Although no inferences changed as a result of these errors, many values changed slightly and have been corrected. The proportion of the world's nations having constitutional rights to a healthy environment changed from 75% to 74%. The proportions of nations in different categories given in the Fig. 1 caption all changed except purple countries (3.1%): green countries changed from 47.2% to 46.9%; blue countries changed from 24.4% to 24.2%; and orange countries changed from 25.3% to 25.8%. The proportion of the global atmospheric CO2 emitted by the 144 nations changed from 72.6% to 74.4%; the proportion of the world's population represented by the 144 nations changed from 84.9% to 85%. The values of annual average CO2 emissions for blue countries changed from 363,000 Gg to 353,000 Gg and for orange countries from 195,000 Gg to 201,000 Gg. The proportion of threatened mammals endemic to a single country represented by the 144 countries changed from 91% to 84%. Figures 1-3 have been updated to show the correct values and map colours and the Supplementary Information has been updated to give the correct country codes.

Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors.

Large carnivores, such as gray wolves, Canis lupus, are difficult to protect in mixed-use landscapes because some people perceive them as dangerous and because they sometimes threaten human property and safety. Governments may respond by killing carnivores in an effort to prevent repeated conflicts or threats, although the functional effectiveness of lethal methods has long been questioned. We evaluated two methods of government intervention following independent events of verified wolf predation on domestic animals (depredation) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA between 1998-2014, at three spatial scales. We evaluated two intervention methods using log-rank tests and conditional Cox recurrent event, gap time models based on retrospective analyses of the following quasi-experimental treatments: (1) selective killing of wolves by trapping near sites of verified depredation, and (2) advice to owners and haphazard use of non-lethal methods without wolf-killing. The government did not randomly assign treatments and used a pseudo-control (no removal of wolves was not a true control), but the federal permission to intervene lethally was granted and rescinded independent of events on the ground. Hazard ratios suggest lethal intervention was associated with an insignificant 27% lower risk of recurrence of events at trapping sites, but offset by an insignificant 78% increase in risk of recurrence at sites up to 5.42 km distant in the same year, compared to the non-lethal treatment. Our results do not support the hypothesis that Michigan's use of lethal intervention after wolf depredations was effective for reducing the future risk of recurrence in the vicinities of trapping sites. Examining only the sites of intervention is incomplete because neighbors near trapping sites may suffer the recurrence of depredations. We propose two new hypotheses for perceived effectiveness of lethal methods: (a) killing predators may be perceived as effective because of the benefits to a small minority of farmers, and (b) if neighbors experience side-effects of lethal intervention such as displaced depredations, they may perceive the problem growing and then demand more lethal intervention rather than detecting problems spreading from the first trapping site. Ethical wildlife management guided by the "best scientific and commercial data available" would suggest suspending the standard method of trapping wolves in favor of non-lethal methods (livestock guarding dogs or fladry) that have been proven effective in preventing livestock losses in Michigan and elsewhere.