Don't forget to look down – collaborative approaches to predator conservation |
| |
| Authors: | Steve M Redpath John D C Linnell Marco Festa‐Bianchet Luigi Boitani Nils Bunnefeld Amy Dickman R J Gutiérrez R J Irvine Maria Johansson Aleksandra Maji? Barry J McMahon Simon Pooley Camilla Sandström Annelie Sjölander‐Lindqvist Ketil Skogen Jon E Swenson Arie Trouwborst Juliette Young E J Milner‐Gulland |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Biological & Environmental Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.;2. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Grimso Wildlife Research Station, Riddarhyttan, Sweden;3. Norwegian institute for nature research, Trondheim, Norway;4. Département de biologie, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada;5. Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Roma, Italy;6. Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, U.K.;7. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Zoology Department, University of Oxford, The Recanati‐Kaplan Centre, Abingdon, U.K.;8. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.;9. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, UK;10. Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, 221 Lund, Sweden;11. Biotechnical Faculty, Biology Department, SI‐1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;12. UCD School of Agriculture & Food Science, University College Dublin Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;13. Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, London, U.K.;14. Department of Political Science, Ume? University, Ume?, Sweden;15. Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, G?teborg, Sweden;16. Norwegian institute for nature research, Oslo, Norway;17. Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, ?s, Norway;18. Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands;19. NERFC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, UK;20. Department of Zoology and Merton College, Tasso Leventis Professor of Biodiversity, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, U.K. |
| |
| Abstract: | Finding effective ways of conserving large carnivores is widely recognised as a priority in conservation. However, there is disagreement about the most effective way to do this, with some favouring top‐down ‘command and control’ approaches and others favouring collaboration. Arguments for coercive top‐down approaches have been presented elsewhere; here we present arguments for collaboration. In many parts of the developed world, flexibility of approach is built into the legislation, so that conservation objectives are balanced with other legitimate goals. In the developing world, limited resources, poverty and weak governance mean that collaborative approaches are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore conservation. In general, coercive policies may lead to the deterioration of political legitimacy and potentially to non‐compliance issues such as illegal killing, whereas collaborative approaches may lead to psychological ownership, enhanced trust, learning, and better social outcomes. Sustainable hunting/trapping plays a crucial part in the conservation and management of many large carnivores. There are many different models for how to conserve carnivores effectively across the world, research is now required to reduce uncertainty and examine the effectiveness of these approaches in different contexts. |
| |
| Keywords: | predator management conservation carnivores conflict collaboration top‐down bottom‐up hunting |
|
|
