News selection and framing: the media as a stakeholder in human-carnivore coexistence

The media widely covers large carnivores and their impacts on human livelihood and plays an important role in their conservation. Yet, we know little about how species identity affects news selection, framing, accuracy and information flow. We investigated the online coverage of two cases of attacks or alleged attacks on humans alternatingly attributed to wolves and dogs in Greece and Germany. The period during which wolves were considered the primary suspects for the attacks was covered by up to two times more articles than when dogs were suspected. Wolves were presented as more likely suspects for the attacks than dogs, and wolf articles contained more inaccuracies measured as title-text mismatches. Press agencies played a significant role in the selection and dissemination of wolf news. We suggest that conservation scientists, journalists and policy makers work together to ensure an accurate representation in the media of human-carnivore coexistence and its challenges

Wolf pack (Canis lupus) territory selection in Central Greece: Habitat selection, daily movements and effect on livestock

Wolves occupy a large part of Continental Greece. Although wolf population is not critically endangered , high trophic dependence from human related food sources, relatively low population density, high conflict levels with livestock production, large territory sizes that impose the need of unhampered movement and dispersal of individuals, make wolves especially vulnerable on large scale reductions of food availability and ongoing habitat fragmentation from large infrastructures like closed highways. Basic aims of the dissertation was to enlighten and evaluate: factors related to territory core area selection, habitat selection inside territories, the degree and importance of those parameters which define severity and frequency of attacks to livestock, effects of human disturbance on habitat selection and also circadian or seasonal patterns of wolf movements. Wolf pack territory core area selection was studied in an area of 6500 km2 with the simulated howling survey method. Core areas (rendezvous sites) of wolf packs studied (n=35) were most frequently located in the middle altitude class. At this alt. class presence of adequate food sources was combined with annually stable average food availability. Wolves selected core areas that were furthest from forest roads, closest to permanent water sources and with the least possible forest fragmentation, thus reducing mortality levels of their young from humans and shepherd dogs. Habitat selection of individual wolves was studied inside territories with the use of satellite telemetry. Wolves occupied large territories of several hundred km2 (300-750km2), and selected areas inside territories according to food availability, safety of resting areas and ease of travel. Wolves tolerated high levels of human disturbance like highway construction areas when availability and distribution of food resources was stable close to disturbance zones. Different wolves responded differently on some habitat variables according to sex, wolf pack history, learning and biological season. Average distance traveled by wolves was related to sex, biological season, food availability & distribution. Overall, wolves achieved 70% of their movement during the night, but managed to shift activity patterns seasonally, thus foraging effort was not affected by day length.Wolf effect on livestock was studied by direct examination on wolf attacks. Wolves caused farmers a 1-5% annual loss per capita. Farmers with larger flocks experienced more damage, while environmental characteristics of grazing areas affected distribution and frequency of wolf attacks. Husbandry methods (flock surveillance and livestock guarding dogs) reduced losses per attack, although spatial distribution and seasonality of attacks seem to be more related with wolf pack energetic needs and seasonal changes of livestock grazing patterns.Ο λύκος παρουσιάζει ευρεία κατανομή στην Ηπειρωτική Ελλάδα. Η εξάρτησή του είδους από ανθρωπογενείς πηγές τροφής, η χαμηλή πληθυσμιακή του πυκνότητα, ο υψηλός βαθμός σύγκρουσης με την κτηνοτροφία και η οριοθέτηση πολύ μεγάλων σε έκταση χωροκρατειών που απαιτούν την ανεμπόδιστη μετακίνηση των ατόμων του είδους, το καθιστούν ευάλωτο σε αλλαγές μεγάλης κλίμακας, όπως η μείωση της διαθεσιμότητας τροφής και ο κατακερματισμός της κατανομής από τεχνικά έργα (κλειστοί αυτοκινητόδρομοι). Βασικοί στόχοι της Δ.Δ αποτελούσαν: η διερεύνηση των παραγόντων που σχετίζονται με την επιλογή των θέσεων συνάντησης (περιοχές πυρήνες), των περιοχών ενδιαίτησης εντός των επικρατειών, ο βαθμός και οι παράμετροι που καθορίζουν την σοβαρότητα και συχνότητα των επιθέσεων στο κτηνοτροφικό κεφάλαιο, η επίδραση της όχλησης στην επιλογή βιοτόπου καθώς και τα 24ωρα και εποχιακά πρότυπα μετακίνησης. Η επιλογή των θέσεων πυρήνων μελετήθηκε, σε έκταση 6500 τετ.χιλ με τη μέθοδο simulated howling surveys. Η χωροθέτηση τους εντοπίσθηκε κυρίως στη μέση υψομετρική ζώνη που εμφάνιζε σταθερή διαθεσιμότητα τροφής αν και όχι την μέγιστη. Οι αγέλες των λύκων επέλεξαν για την φύλαξη των μικρών τους θέσεις(ν=35), όσο το δυνατό μακρύτερα από το δασικό δίκτυο, πλησιέστερα σε μόνιμη παροχή νερού και όπου η βλάστηση ήταν λιγότερο κατατμημένη, περιορίζοντας την πιθανότητα θανάτωσής των απογόνων από ανθρώπους και ποιμενικούς σκύλους. Η επιλογή βιοτόπου εντός των επικρατειών τους μελετήθηκε με τη μέθοδο της δορυφορικής τηλεμετρίας. Οι λύκοι διατηρούσαν επικράτειες της τάξης των εκατοντάδων τετ. χιλ (300-750 τετ.χιλ), ενώ επέλεξαν περιοχές ενδιαίτησης με βάση την διαθεσιμότητα τροφής, την ασφάλεια των θέσεων ανάπαυσης και την ευκολία μετακίνησης, ενώ επέδειξαν ανοχή σε ιδιαίτερα οχλήζουσες δραστηριότητες, όπως η κατασκευή αυτοκινητοδρόμων, εφόσον η διαθεσιμότητα και η κατανομή της τροφής τους ήταν σταθερές στο χρόνο κοντά στα τεχνικά έργα. Διαφορές στις αποκρίσεις των μεταβλητών περιγραφής βιοτόπου εντοπίσθηκαν μεταξύ διαφορετικών ατόμων με βάση το φύλο, τη μάθηση και τη φάση του βιολογικού τους κύκλου. Οι μέσες ημερήσιες διανυόμενες αποστάσεις από τους λύκους εξαρτήθηκαν από το φύλο, την διαθεσιμότητα και κατανομή των τροφικών διαθέσιμων και τη περίοδο του βιολογικού τους κύκλου. Οι λύκοι διένυσαν το 70% της συνολικά διανυθείσας απόστασης την νύκτα, αλλά τροποποιούσαν τον 24ώρο κύκλο τους εποχιακά ώστε ο χρόνος ψαξίματος για τροφή να μην επηρεάζεται από την διάρκεια της ημέρας. Η επίδραση των λύκων στο κτηνοτροφικό κεφάλαιο μελετήθηκε με αυτοψίες σε επιθέσεις λύκων. Οι ετήσιες απώλειες κυμάνθηκαν κυρίως μεταξύ 1-5%. Μεγαλύτερα κοπάδια είχαν περισσότερες απώλειες ενώ τα περιβαλλοντικά χαρακτηριστικά των περιοχών βόσκησης επέδρασαν στην κατανομή και τη συχνότητα των επιθέσεων. Οι μέθοδοι πρόληψης μείωσαν τις απώλειες ανά επίθεση, ενώ η κατανομή των επιθέσεων στο χώρο και η εποχικότητα τους, φαίνεται να εξαρτώνται περισσότερο από τις ενεργειακές ανάγκες των αγελών και τις εποχιακές αλλαγές στη χρήση των βοσκοτόπων από τα κτηνοτροφικά ζώα

Dogs, not wolves, most likely to have caused the death of a British tourist in northern Greece

Wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and expanded across many parts of the world thanks to conservation efforts, including improved legal status and restoration of their prey. Concurrently, public concerns regarding the risk of wolf attacks on humans and livestock are increasing as wolves occupy human-dominated landscapes. We examined a unique case in Europe allegedly involving wolves in the death of a female British tourist, aged 64, in northern Greece in September 2017. This incident received extensive international media attention and yet many fundamental details of the case area are lacking, including whether local livestock guarding dogs played a role. To assist in resolving the case, we conducted an extensive literature review which documented 13 criteria linked to the risk of either a wolf and/or a dog attacking a human. We also conducted a camera trap survey (October to December 2017) soon after the fatal attack to calculate the activity overlap among humans, dogs and wolves. Sufficient data were available for assessing 11 of the 13 criteria. For the remaining two, the required data were either not analysed (i.e. canid DNA collected from the attack site), not appropriately collected (i.e. DNA from the mouths of suspected dogs) or were collected, but misinterpreted (i.e. the post-consumption patterns of the victim’s corpse). Via this combination of evidence, we conclude that this case involved a fatal dog attack. This assertion is supported by evidence such as the: a) high dog-human activity overlap at the attack site which peaked during the attack time as opposed to near zero wolf-human activity overlap at the same time, b) presence of a large pack of unsupervised dogs, c) high ratio of male dogs in the dog pack, d) close vicinity of the attack site to dog owner’s property and e) previous documented aggression of these dogs towards humans. The consumption patterns, time scale and location of the victim’s remains indicate a posthumous consumption of the corpse possibly by the same dogs and/or by wild scavengers including wolves. A multidisciplinary approach, such as this one, in the assessment of putative wildlife attacks on humans can reduce misidentifications of the responsible species by forensic authorities and, therefore, prevent unfounded decrease in public tolerance for large carnivores

Wolf–Hunting Dog Interactions in a Biodiversity Hot Spot Area in Northern Greece: Preliminary Assessment and Implications for Conservation in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park and Adjacent Areas

Hunting dog depredation by wolves triggers retaliatory killing, with negative impacts on wildlife conservation. In the wider area of the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park, reports on such incidents have increased lately. To investigate this conflict, we interviewed 56 affected hunters, conducted wolf trophic analysis, analyzed trends for 2010–2020, applied MAXENT models for risk-map creation, and GLMs to explore factors related to depredation levels. Losses averaged approximately one dog per decade and hunter showing a positive trend, while livestock depredations showed a negative trend. Wolves preyed mainly on wild prey, with dogs consisting of 5.1% of the winter diet. Low altitude areas, with low to medium livestock availability favoring wolf prey and game species, were the riskiest. Dogs were more vulnerable during hare hunting and attacks more frequent during wolf post-weaning season or in wolf territories with reproduction. Hunter experience and group hunting reduced losses. Wolves avoided larger breeds or older dogs. Making noise or closely keeping dogs reduced attack severity. Protective dog vests, risk maps, and enhancing wolf natural prey availability are further measures to be considered, along with a proper verification system to confirm and effectively separate wolf attacks from wild boar attacks, which were also common

Ecological correlates of large carnivore depredation on sheep in Europe

202

Non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism: guidelines for responsible practices [Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe IUCN/SSC Specialist Group] Specialist Group

In many early European cultures, humans shared an overall positive view of the wolf (Boitani, 1995; Boitani and Ciucci, 2009). But this changed with the anthropocentric view of nature brought about by Christianity as well as with the process of domestication and the advent of extensive animal husbandry (Boitani, 1995). Wolves were then strongly persecuted, leading to their extirpation in almost all their former range across the continent. In the last few decades, however, wolves have returned to many parts of Europe from which they had been absent for centuries. Their recovery impacts a range of human activities and interests and is accompanied by a variety of social conflicts and diverging points of view on how wolves should be managed (Boitani and Linnell, 2015; Linnell and Cretois, 2018). Conflicts and the negative economic impacts of wolf damage to livestock are the most pressing problems for wolf management today. Public debate and academic research on wolf–human relations tend to focus on these issues (Rode et al., 2021). The ecological roles of wolves in ecosystem structure and functioning are increasingly recognized (Hebbelwhite et al., 2005; Kuijper et al., 2013). However, although predator-prey interactions are highly contextdependent, most studies on this topic have been undertaken in large, natural landscapes. In most of Europe, human actions attenuate the ecological effects of large carnivores (Kuijper et al., 2016). Nevertheless, new values and the potential social benefits of human–wolf coexistence are underappreciated. Wolves are an important generator of culture, ethnography and tradition (Álvares et al., 2011) and their presence brings educational and research benefits, income from regional and product marketing, as well as socio-economic benefits from wildlife tourism (Rode et al., 2021). Different forms of tourism associated with wolves, such as wolf watching, photographing, or observing signs of their presence have already been practiced for a couple of decades in North America (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996) and to a lesser extent in Europe (Koščová and Koščová, 2016; Bavo and Villar Lama, 2020; Notaro and Grilli, 2021). Although tourism can increase the value of the species locally, such activities can also have negative impacts on wolves and their habitat, especially with the growing demand for wildlife tourism (Curtin and Kragh, 2014). The following guidelines were prepared by members of the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe expert group of the IUCN/SSC to set specific recommendations for responsible non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism which has as little impact on wolves as possible. The aim of these guidelines is to promote tourism activities that go beyond direct sightings of wildlife by focusing on wolf presence and wolf-related cultural heritage, creating economic opportunities for local communities in areas with wolves and consequently leading to increased tolerance towards this species

Non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism: guidelines for responsible practices [Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe IUCN/SSC Specialist Group] Specialist Group

In many early European cultures, humans shared an overall positive view of the wolf (Boitani, 1995; Boitani and Ciucci, 2009). But this changed with the anthropocentric view of nature brought about by Christianity as well as with the process of domestication and the advent of extensive animal husbandry (Boitani, 1995). Wolves were then strongly persecuted, leading to their extirpation in almost all their former range across the continent. In the last few decades, however, wolves have returned to many parts of Europe from which they had been absent for centuries. Their recovery impacts a range of human activities and interests and is accompanied by a variety of social conflicts and diverging points of view on how wolves should be managed (Boitani and Linnell, 2015; Linnell and Cretois, 2018). Conflicts and the negative economic impacts of wolf damage to livestock are the most pressing problems for wolf management today. Public debate and academic research on wolf–human relations tend to focus on these issues (Rode et al., 2021). The ecological roles of wolves in ecosystem structure and functioning are increasingly recognized (Hebbelwhite et al., 2005; Kuijper et al., 2013). However, although predator-prey interactions are highly contextdependent, most studies on this topic have been undertaken in large, natural landscapes. In most of Europe, human actions attenuate the ecological effects of large carnivores (Kuijper et al., 2016). Nevertheless, new values and the potential social benefits of human–wolf coexistence are underappreciated. Wolves are an important generator of culture, ethnography and tradition (Álvares et al., 2011) and their presence brings educational and research benefits, income from regional and product marketing, as well as socio-economic benefits from wildlife tourism (Rode et al., 2021). Different forms of tourism associated with wolves, such as wolf watching, photographing, or observing signs of their presence have already been practiced for a couple of decades in North America (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996) and to a lesser extent in Europe (Koščová and Koščová, 2016; Bavo and Villar Lama, 2020; Notaro and Grilli, 2021). Although tourism can increase the value of the species locally, such activities can also have negative impacts on wolves and their habitat, especially with the growing demand for wildlife tourism (Curtin and Kragh, 2014). The following guidelines were prepared by members of the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe expert group of the IUCN/SSC to set specific recommendations for responsible non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism which has as little impact on wolves as possible. The aim of these guidelines is to promote tourism activities that go beyond direct sightings of wildlife by focusing on wolf presence and wolf-related cultural heritage, creating economic opportunities for local communities in areas with wolves and consequently leading to increased tolerance towards this species.publishedVersio

The role of human-related risk in breeding site selection by wolves

Large carnivores can be found in different scenarios of cohabitation with humans. Behavioral adaptations to minimize risk from humans are expected to be exacerbated where large carnivores are most vulnerable, such as at breeding sites. Using wolves as a model species, along with data from 26 study areas across the species' worldwide range, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the role of humans in breeding site selection by a large carnivore. Some of the patterns previously observed at the local scale become extrapolatable to the entire species range provided that important sources of variation are taken into account. Generally, wolves minimised the risk of exposure at breeding sites by avoiding human-made structures, selecting shelter from vegetation and avoiding agricultural lands. Our results suggest a scaled hierarchical habitat selection process across selection orders by which wolves compensate higher exposure risk to humans within their territories via a stronger selection at breeding sites. Dissimilar patterns between continents suggest that adaptations to cope with human-associated risks are modulated by the history of coexistence and persecution. Although many large carnivores persisting in human-dominated landscapes do not require large-scale habitat preservation, habitat selection at levels below occupancy and territory should be regarded in management and conservation strategies aiming to preserve these species in such contexts. In this case, we recommend providing shelter from human interference at least in small portions of land in order to fulfill the requirements of the species to locate their breeding sites.We are in debt with all the administrative, logistical and funding support from the Picos de Europa National Park and the Regional Government of Galicia (Spain), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (SEV-2012-0262), the Government of the Northwest Territories and the University of Northern British Columbia (Canada), the U.S.A. National Park Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S.A. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, the Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources and Transportation, the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, the Government of India, the Regional Government of Maharastra (India), the Progetto Lupo Piemonte (Italy), the European Union, the Slovenian Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (LIFE08/NAT/SLO/000244), and the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program (partnership: USFWS, AGFD, WMAT, USDA Forest Service, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services–Wildlife Services, and several participating counties). JVLB was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (JCI-2012-13066). MK was supported by Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS, P4-0059)