Hover over blue text to see an abstract of each article
(read the abstracts without downloading a thing!)or Back to main wolf page
Treves, Louchouarn, Santiago-Ávila. 2020. Modelling concerns confound evaluations of legal wolf-killing. Biological Conservation. In press.
Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors. PLOS One. here.
We first showed that Michigan and Wisconsin wolf population growth slowed whenever the government liberalized wolf-killing and the slow-down was proportional to the length of time that culling was liberalized, regardless of how many wolves were killed. Then starting a lively debate, Pepin et al. tried to counter our hypothesis but did not succeed in our opinion. That debate improved our model which strengthened its findings, also in the pages of Proceedings of the Royal Society B Strengthening our findings.
and a 2017 rebuttal.
Then Stien and Olson and his colleagues tried again. Those critiques only made our evidence stronger.
Olson et al. in particular weakened their own position. Furthermore, independent findings for Mexican wolves presented by David Parsons in 2014 corroborate the idea that relaxing protections slows population growth more than expected.
Risk Map for Wolf Threats to Livestock still Predictive 5 Years after Construction. PLoS ONE: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180043.
Mismeasured mortality: correcting estimates of wolf poaching in the United States. Journal of Mammalogy 98(3): open access at DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyx052
Gray wolf mortality patterns in Wisconsin from 1979 to 2012 Journal of Mammalogy 98(1): DOI:10.1093/jmammal/gyw145
Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment14: 380-388.
In a nutshell:
• Predator control methods to prevent livestock loss have rarely been subject to rigorous tests using the “gold standard”
for scientific inference (random assignment to control and treatment groups with experimental designs that avoid biases in sampling, treatment, measurement, or reporting)
• Across the controlled experiments that we systematically examined, higher standards of evidence were generally applied in tests of non-lethal methods than in tests of lethal methods for predator control
• Non-lethal methods were more effective than lethal methods in preventing carnivore predation on livestock generally; at least two lethal methods (government culling or regulated, public hunting) were followed by increases in predation on livestock; zero tests of non-lethal methods had counterproductive effects
• All flawed tests came from North America; ten of 12 flawed tests were published in three journals, compared to four of 12 tests with strong inference in those same journals.
• We recommend suspending lethal predator control methods that do not currently have rigorous evidence for functional effectiveness in preventing livestock loss until gold- standard tests are completed.
Treves, A., Bonacic, C.(equal co-authors). 2016.
Humanity's Dual Response to Dogs and Wolves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE). doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.04.006
Take-home message: The relationship between humans, dogs, and wolves has changed over more than 40,000 years in ways that reflect the ecology and evolved traits of all three species.
Treves, A. Bruskotter, J.T. 2014.
Tolerance for Predatory Wildlife. Science 344: 476-477.
Hogberg, J., Treves, A., Shaw, B., Naughton-Treves, L. 2015.
Changes in attitudes toward wolves before and after an inaugural public hunting and trapping season: early evidence from Wisconsin’s wolf range. Environmental Conservation, doi 10.1017/S037689291500017X.
Browne-Nuñez, C., Treves, A., Macfarland, D., Voyles, Z., Turng, C. 2015.
Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations. Biological Conservation 189: 59-71.
Olson, E.R., Treves, A., Wydeven, A.P., Ventura, S. 2014.
Landscape predictors of wolf attacks on bear-hunting dogs in Wisconsin, USA. Wildlife Research 41: 584–597.
Bruskotter, J.T., Vucetich, J.A., Enzler, S., Treves, A., Nelson, M.P. 2013.
Removing protections for wolves and the future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973). Conservation Letters 7: 401-407.
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., Shelley, V. 2013.
Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves. Conservation Biology 27: 315–323
Treves, A. 2012.
Tolerant attitudes reflect an intent to steward: A Reply to Bruskotter and Fulton. Society and Natural Resources 25: 103-104.
Shelley, V., Treves, A., Naughton, L. 2011.
Attitudes to Wolves and Wolf Policy Among Ojibwe Tribal Members and Non-tribal Residents of Wisconsin's Wolf Range. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16: 397-413.
For complete results of the 2009 survey, Results from tribal members of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa here and other non-tribal residents of wolf range here.
Gray Wolf Conservation at a Crossroads. BioScience 61: 584-585.
2012. Bruskotter, J., Enzler, S., Treves, A.
Rescuing Wolves from Politics: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource. Response to Mech and Johns. Science (Wash., D.C.), Policy Forum 335: 795-796.
2011. Bruskotter, J., Enzler, S., Treves, A.
Rescuing Wolves from Politics: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource. Science (Wash., D.C.), Policy Forum 333(6051): 1828-1829.
Treves, A., Martin K.A. 2011.
Hunters as stewards of wolves in Wisconsin and the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Society and Natural Resources 24: 984-994.
Treves, A., Martin K.A., Wydeven, A.P., Wiedenhoeft, J.E. 2011.
Forecasting Environmental Hazards and the Application of Risk Maps to Predator Attacks on Livestock. Bioscience 61(6): 451-458.
Treves, A., Jurewicz, R., Naughton-Treves, L., Wilcove, D. 2009.
The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2009, 18(14):4003-4021.
Treves, A. 2008.
Beyond Recovery: Wisconsin's Wolf Policy 1980-2008. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(5): 329-338.
Treves, A., Martin, K.A., Wiedenhoeft, J.E., Wydeven, A.P. 2009.
Gray wolf dispersal in the Great Lakes Region, in Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: an Endangered Species Success Story. Wydeven, A. P., Heske, E.H., Van Deelen, T. R. eds. Springer: New York.
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L. 2005.
Evaluating lethal control in the management of human-wildlife conflict. People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistence? Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz, A. eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 86-106.
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L. Harper, E., Mladenoff, D., Rose, R., Sickley, T., Wydeven, A. 2004.
Predicting human-carnivore conflict: A spatial model derived from 25 years of wolf predation on livestock. Conservation Biology 18(1): 114-125.
Wydeven, A.P., Treves, A., Brost, B., Wiedenhoeft, J. 2004.
Characteristics of wolf packs in Wisconsin: Identification of traits influencing depredation. Pp. 28-50 in People and Predators: From Conflict to Coexistence. N. Fascione, A. Delach, M. Smith, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., Treves, A. 2003.
Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens' attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1500-1511.
Shivik, J.A., Treves, A., Callahan, M. 2003.
Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary and secondary repellents. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1531-1537.
Treves, A., Jurewicz, R., Naughton-Treves, L., Rose, R., Willging, R., Wydeven, A. 2002.
Wolf depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin, 1976-2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:231-241.