Conflict Case Study:

Carnivore
Attacks
BY: Zach Hoelger, Karina Mascera, Justin Saginor, Samantha Smutz
 In recent years, incidents involving cougar and
bear attacks have sparked widespread concern
among the public and various stakeholders.
While these attacks are not very common, they
often gain traction for the possible tragic outcome
Stakeholders
Wildlife Managers
Point of View:
Responsible for the fate of
carnivores when an attack
occurs
Implement management options
to prevent/ control the
frequency of attack
Recommendations:
Education and Public Outreach
Regulation of Habitats and
Activities
Research
Deterrents
Lethal Management
Assumptions:
General public will cooperate/
follow regulations
Public assumes that their opinions
holds little weight in management
decisions
Assume all managers/
organizations are making the best
decisions for every party
Property Owners
Point of View: Recommendations:
● Most wildlife conflict is
related to domestic
animal and crop losses
○ Losses put human
families at risk
● Historical use of firearms
and traps to protect their
land from predators
Assumptions:
● Hunting ● WMs are tree huggers that
● Trapping bend to the activists
● WIldlife Preserves ● Activists care more about
● Field hands as guards wild animals than people
● Barriers ● Public don’t support use of
guns/other lethal methods
● Reducing predator numbers
reduces conflict
● Relocation makes the
problem someone else’s
Animal Rights Activists
Point of View:
● Animals should have the
same rights as humans
● Should not use lethal
methods to manage
● Bears/cougars do not pose
a huge threat
Recommendations:
● Leaving the animals alone
● Education
● Encouraging responsible
outdoor practices
● Using non-lethal measures
● Encourage others to support
conservation efforts
Assumptions:
● Humans are the issue
● Attacks are provoked
● Predators defending territory
● Hunters and farmers don’t care
● Wildlife managers/property
owners care more about
human interests
General Public
Point of View:
● Carnivorous Predators are a
threat to everyone
● Bears and Cougars need to be
managed by any means
necessary to keep people safe
Recommendations: Assumptions:
● Predator Removal ● All predators are a threat
○ Lethal ○ Bears are aggressive
○ Relocate ○ Cougars are skittish
● Protected reserves
● Hunting ● Animals rights are crazy
● Tracking ● Gov is responsible
● Ranchers biggest victim
Previous Management Strategies

● Previously, hunting was a main portion of managing bear and cougars

● Bears eliminated through hunting, livestock depredation control, development,

and commercial trapping

● Cougars were on the brink of extinction

● Not much conservation efforts for these species

Recommendations
 Collaborative Stakeholder
Management Strategies

1. Removal
a. Lethal
b. Relocation

1. Education / Public Outreach

1. Habitat Management / Preservation

 Stakeholder Collaboration
● WMs take the lead on ● General public easiest to
management work with
○ Have the know how, ○ Want to learn and
means, and funding minimize harm
○ Favor education and ○ Support lethal and
non-lethal, but non-lethal
understand when ● Activists get education on
lethal management when/why lethal is used
is appropriate ○ Don’t want to
interfere with nature
○ People can adjust
behavior easier
● Property owners rooted in
“old way” of doing it
○ More support for lethal
than non-lethal
○ want to avoid footing
the bill
○ Don’t want to relocate
the problem
Challenges / Implications
Predator removal Education Habitat Management
-vocal activists -getting attendees Preservation
-management in -different classes to -human expansion into
populated areas target stakeholders these area
-relocation can be -hiring people to -funding to protect the
expensive teach land
-animals finding way -having the proper -limited amount of
back home materials to teach protected habitat
-less predators ≠ -wildlife create issues
less predation in the surrounding area
A successful plan would likely need implementation of some of
each method
-removal and relocation of the most troublesome animals
-education of people on wildlife and methods of management
-protection of land for relocated animals and natural resources
 Bibliography
Penteriani, V., Bombieri, G., Fedriani, J. M., López-Bao, J. V., Garrote, P. J., Russo, L. F., & Delgado, M. D. M. (2017). Humans as prey: coping with large
carnivore attacks using a predator-prey interaction perspective. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 11(2), 10.

Stoner, D. C., Ditmer, M. A., Mitchell, D. L., Young, J. K., & Wolfe, M. L. (2021). Conflict, coexistence, or both? Cougar ha bitat selection, prey
composition, and mortality in a multiple-use landscape.

Usui, R., Sheeran, L. K., Asbury, A. M., & Blackson, M. (2021). Impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on mammals at tourism destin ations: a systematic
review. Mammal review, 51(4), 492-507.

Morales-González, A., Ruiz-Villar, H., Ordiz, A., & Penteriani, V. (2020). Large carnivores living alongside humans: Brown bears in human-modified
landscapes. Global Ecology and Conservation, 22, e00937.

A., L., Laird, A. M., Brann, L., Coxon, C., Hamilton, A. J., Lawhon, L. A., Martin, J. A., Rehnberg, N., Tyrrell, B. P., Welch, Z., Hale, B., & Alagona, P. S.
(2021). The Ethics of Reintroducing Large Carnivores: The Case of the California Grizzly. Conservation and Society, 19(1), 80–90.
https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_20_131

Harrison, G. L. (1991). The Endangered Species Act and Ursine Usurpations: A Grizzly Tale of Two Takings. The University of Chicago Law Review,
58(3), 1101–1124. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599998

Killion, A. K., Ramirez, J. M., & Carter, N. H. (2021). Human adaptation strategies are key to cobenefits in human –wildlife systems. Conservation Letters,
14(2).