Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic.

Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.

The importance of tangible and intangible factors in human-carnivore coexistence.

Conflict with humans is one of the major threats facing the world's remaining large carnivore populations, and understanding human attitudes is key to improving coexistence. We surveyed people living near Hwange National Park about their attitudes toward coexisting with lions. We used ordinal regression models with the results of the survey to investigate the importance of a range of tangible and intangible factors on attitudes. The variables investigated included the costs and benefits of wildlife presence, emotion, culture, religion, vulnerability, risk perception, notions of responsibility, and personal value orientations. This was for the purpose of effectively tailoring conservation efforts but also for ethical policy making. Intangible factors (e.g., fear and ecocentric values) were as important as, if not more important than, tangible factors (such as livestock losses) for understanding attitudes, based on the effect sizes of these variables. The degree to which participants' fear of lions interfered with their daily activities was the most influential variable. The degree to which benefits accrue to households from the nearby protected area was also highly influential, as was number of livestock lost, number of dependents, ecocentric value orientation, and participation in conflict mitigation programs. Contrary to what is often assumed, metrics of livestock loss did not dominate attitudes to coexistence with lions. Furthermore, we found that socioeconomic variables may appear important when studied in isolation, but their effect may disappear when controlling for variables related to beliefs, perceptions, and past experiences. This raises questions about the widespread reliance on socioeconomic variables in the field of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. To facilitate coexistence with large carnivores, we recommend measures that reduce fear (through education and through protective measures that reduce the need to be fearful), reduction of livestock losses, and ensuring local communities benefit from conservation. Ecocentric values also emerged as influential, highlighting the need to develop conservation initiatives tailored to local values.

Importancia de los Factores Tangibles e Intangibles en la Coexistencia Humanos-Carnívoros Resumen Los conflictos con humanos son una de las principales amenazas que enfrentan las poblaciones permanentes de grandes carnívoros del planeta y el entendimiento de las actitudes humanas es importante para mejorar la coexistencia. Preguntamos a las personas que viven cerca del Parque Nacional Hwange sobre su postura hacia la coexistencia con leones. Usamos modelos de regresión ordinal en los resultados del cuestionario para investigar la importancia de una gama de factores tangibles e intangibles para estas posturas. Las variables investigadas incluyeron el costo y beneficio de la presencia de fauna, emociones, cultura, religión, vulnerabilidad, percepción de riesgos, nociones de la responsabilidad y orientaciones de valor personal. Realizamos esto con el propósito de diseñar efectivamente los esfuerzos de conservación pero también para la generación de políticas éticas. Los factores intangibles (p. ej.: el miedo y los valores ecocéntricos) fueron tan importantes, si no es que más importantes, como los factores tangibles (como la pérdida de cabezas de ganado) para el entendimiento de las actitudes, con base en los tamaños del efecto de estas variables. El grado al que el miedo que los participantes sienten por los leones interfiere con sus actividades diarias fue la variable con mayor influencia. El grado al que los hogares del área protegida cercana devengan beneficios también tuvo una influencia alta, como lo tuvo el número de cabezas de ganado perdidas, el número de dependientes, la orientación de los valores ecocéntricos y la participación en programas de mitigación del conflicto. Contrario a lo que frecuentemente se asume, las medidas de la pérdida de cabezas de ganado no dominó sobre las actitudes por la coexistencia con leones. Más allá, encontramos que las variables socioeconómicas pueden parecer importantes cuando se estudian de manera aislada pero su efecto puede desaparecer cuando se controlan las variables relacionadas con las creencias, percepciones y experiencias pasadas. Esto genera preguntas sobre la dependencia hacia las variables socioeconómicas en el área de estudios de conflictos y coexistencia entre humanos y fauna. Para facilitar la coexistencia con carnívoros mayores recomendamos tomar medidas que reduzcan el miedo (por medio de la educación y medidas de protección que reduzcan la necesidad de vivir con miedo), la disminución de la pérdida de cabezas de ganado y garantizarles a las comunidades locales los beneficios que proporciona la conservación. Los valores ecocéntricos también surgieron como influyentes, lo que resalta la necesidad de desarrollar iniciativas de conservación adaptadas a los valores locales.

Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species.

Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the 'Compassionate Conservation' movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of 'Compassionate Conservation', rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.

Bells, bomas and beefsteak: complex patterns of human-predator conflict at the wildlife-agropastoral interface in Zimbabwe.

Reports of livestock depredation by large predators were systematically collected at three study sites in northwestern Zimbabwe from 2008-2013. We recorded 1,527 incidents (2,039 animals killed and 306 injured). Lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta) were mostly responsible, and cattle and donkeys most frequently attacked. Patterns of predation were variable among study sites. Nevertheless, some overall patterns were apparent. Predators selected livestock close to the size of their preferred wild prey, suggesting behaviours evolved to optimise foraging success may determine the domestic species primarily preyed upon. Most attacks occurred when livestock were roaming outside and away from their 'home' protective enclosures at night. Hyaena attacks were largely nocturnal; lions and leopards (Panthera pardus) were more flexible, with attacks occurring by day and at night. Livestock fitted with bells suffered a disproportionate number of attacks; the sound of bells appears to have conditioned predators to associate the sound with foraging opportunities. Lion and hyaena attacks on cattle were more frequent in the wet season suggesting that seasonal herding practices may result in cattle vulnerability. Only a small proportion of conflict incidents were reported to wildlife management officials with a bias towards lion predation events, potentially prejudicing conflict management policies. Predation on domestic stock involves an intricate interplay between predator behaviour and ecology on the one hand and human behaviour and husbandry practices on the other. Our data suggest that improved livestock husbandry (supervision of grazing animals, protection at night in strong enclosures) would greatly reduce livestock depredation.