Myths, Wishful Thinking, and Accountability in Predator Conservation and Management in the United States

Large predators are thought of as ecological keystone species, posterchildren conservation campaigns, and sought-after targets tourists photographers. At the same time, kill livestock huntable animals, occasionally people, triggering fears antipathy among those living alongside them. Until 1960’s government-sponsored eradication persecution campaigns in United States prioritized interests producers recreational hunters, leading to wolves bears over much their range. Without large predators, subsidized by changes agricultural practices milder winters, ungulate populations erupted, negative impacts, economic damage, human health crises (such tick-borne diseases). Shifting societal preferences have ushered more predator-friendly, but controversial wildlife policies, from passively allowing range expansion purposeful reintroductions release Yellowstone National Park). Attempts restore or mountain lions U.S. protecting coyotes appear enjoy strong public support, many state agencies charged with managing wildlife, hunters continue oppose such efforts, because they perceive competitors for animals. There may be compelling reasons restoring them recolonize former ranges. But if intentional releases do not result ecosystem recovery, reduced deer populations, Lyme disease reductions, conservationists who put reputation on line assured decision makers important functional role lose standing trust. Exaggerated predictions ranchers greatly rampant killing carnivores lead poaching illegal threatening recovery predator populations. How return affect vegetation successional change, population size, other biota, attitudes different landscapes has been appropriately assessed. Societal support acceptance expand increase abundance requires development monitoring social, indicators assess how affects animal plant livelihoods.